ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Council Tax

Julian Sturdy: What steps he is taking to help reduce the cost of council tax.

Eric Pickles: Under the last Government, council tax more than doubled. This Government are working with councils to freeze council tax for two years. A recent survey by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy indicates that council tax bills this April will go up by only 0.3%. I would have preferred that amount to be zero, but it is a real-terms reduction for hard-working families and pensioners.

Julian Sturdy: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. What does he make of City of York council’s decision to reject a £1.8 million grant from the Government, and instead to needlessly raise council tax instead by 2.9%, thus increasing financial pressures on York residents?

Eric Pickles: I would certainly be willing to take an away-day trip to York, if only to listen on the doorstep while a canvasser explains why getting an additional sum of £294,000 justifies rejecting a £1.8 million grant from the Government. This is clearly not in the interests of York; the council has not protected its council tax payers. I am afraid that, unlike the 300-odd authorities throughout the country that have taken the freeze, this council is going to find itself in a very difficult position.

Karen Buck: What would the Secretary of State say to constituents of mine in Westminster such as the 90-year-old gentleman with glaucoma who is blind in one eye and unable to walk, and a gentleman I met last weekend with Parkinson’s disease, who have had their taxi cards removed by Westminster city council and correspondingly have to pay £40 for every single journey they make? As they point out, the amount for every single journey is twice the saving they make from the council tax freeze.

Eric Pickles: I do not know the precise circumstances of the hon. Lady’s constituents, but if she would care to write to me with the details, I would happily take up the matter with Westminster council.

Local Suppliers

Rosie Cooper: If he will encourage local authorities to increase their use of local suppliers in the provision of goods and services.

Bob Neill: It is clear that there is significant scope for major savings in local authority procurement from the £62 billion spent each year. By making these savings, we can enhance front-line services, save taxpayers’ money and help to pay off the deficit. To encourage that, we are cutting red tape to open up procurement, especially to small and medium-sized firms. While it is up to a local area to decide from whom to procure, local authorities clearly have significant spending power, which should be used to help drive local growth.

Rosie Cooper: Leeds city council has the charter for procuring community benefits, which encourages all current or potential council suppliers to commit to providing added benefit to the local community, particularly in disadvantaged parts of the city. What action will the Minister take to encourage local authorities to take up schemes such as that seen in Leeds to encourage buyers to use local businesses? That would certainly benefit the towns and villages in my area and businesses in West Lancashire.

Bob Neill: The Government have supported the local productivity programme, which has been developed by the local government sector, led by the Local Government Association. We are looking at ways to improve access to tenders and procurement, especially for small and medium-sized firms, including promoting greater use of the online contract finder tool, which is a potential benefit for local British firms.

James Gray: The supply of phonic books for Her Majesty’s Government is a 95% monopoly of the Oxford University Press and Pearson between them. Does the Minister agree that there would be positive merit in encouraging remaining companies such as Phonic Books Ltd in my constituency to be able to compete with those huge quasi-monopolies by physically seeking to assist them to do so?

Bob Neill: I agree with my hon. Friend. To that end, the Government have been cutting unnecessary procurement red tape—for example, by removing the pre-qualification questionnaires for procurements below £100,000, as I know those requirements have considerably discouraged small businesses from tendering. I hope that councils will follow that lead and will continue to look to other sizes of contracts to improve procurement.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I was recently reading ConservativeHome, as one does. I noticed that the Secretary of State uses it to advise councils to make the best use of taxpayers’ money, so what assessment has his Department made of the amount by which council tax payers could benefit from increased local procurement, which could create local jobs and support local businesses?

Bob Neill: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her reading—I was about to say bedtime reading, but I do not know what time she looked at ConservativeHome, although I am sure that the experience was encouraging and enjoyable.
	As I have said, we are working on a raft of schemes. We have introduced a new code of recommended practice on data transparency, we are introducing new checks and balances on procurement cards, we are working with the local government sector to encourage initiatives such as the Welland procurement unit in the east midlands, and our Spend Pro analysis can identify areas of comparative spend and areas for efficiencies and savings.

Universal Credit (Housing)

Margot James: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on direct payments to tenants for the housing element of universal credit.

Andrew Stunell: We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions, local authorities and housing associations on direct payment demonstration projects, and developing a successful process for paying universal credit directly to tenants which will encourage tenants to manage their own budgets.

Margot James: There are 23,000 local authority-owned homes in my borough of Dudley, and the local authority is extremely concerned about the resources that will be required for the collection of payments once housing benefit is paid directly to tenants. Will my hon. Friend seek guidance from the Department for Work and Pensions on what help can be given to authorities?

Andrew Stunell: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the pilot projects are designed precisely to establish whether those concerns are justified or not. Members representing the five areas involved will have received a letter about the projects from the Department for Work and Pensions. Paying tenants directly eases the transition into work, and is already happening in most cases in the private rented sector.

Stephen Timms: I believe that some 20,000 local authority employees are currently involved in the delivery of housing benefit. What will happen to them when housing benefit is absorbed into universal credit in 18 months’ time?

Andrew Stunell: In October 2013 a start will be made on the transfer with new claimants, and there will then be a progressive integration until 2017. There will be a series of steps as claimants move to universal credit. The demonstration projects will assess all aspects of the delivery of the scheme, and will be reported on to the House in due course.

David Ward: Is the Minister aware that registered social landlords are already threatened with an increase in borrowing costs as a result of arrears and the cost of collection of the direct payments?

Andrew Stunell: As my hon. Friend will know, housing benefit expenditure has been rising rapidly, from £14 billion 10 years ago to £21 billion now. The reform of that benefit is included in the social security measures that have just been approved by the House.

Gisela Stuart: It is not just Dudley borough council and the black country that are concerned. So is Birmingham city council, which is the largest authority in Europe. Given that the Minister is running pilots, can he tell us how he will define success?

Andrew Stunell: The pilots are taking place in five different local authorities, including both urban and rural authorities. The purpose of the demonstrations is to ensure that we get the mechanisms, support and financial tools right, so that landlords’ financial position is protected and tenants receive the right support.

Unauthorised Development

Rehman Chishti: What plans he has to increase the powers of local authorities to tackle unauthorised development.

Gavin Williamson: What plans he has to increase the powers of local authorities to tackle unauthorised development.

Marcus Jones: What plans he has to increase the powers of local authorities to tackle unauthorised development.

Eric Pickles: The Government take the problem of unauthorised development very seriously. Strong powers already exist to enable local planning authorities to take action. Provisions in the Localism Act 2011 will strengthen local planning authorities’ powers to tackle the issue, and will come into force on 6 April this year.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Planning appeals are costly and bureaucratic, which does not encourage the local planning authority to pursue breaches, and the process frustrates both the community and elected representatives alike. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to address this problem?

Eric Pickles: The new Localism Act makes five substantial changes. The first, and most obvious, is that it will no longer be possible to appeal an enforcement and make a retrospective planning application at the same time. Secondly, the issue of permission being granted when there has been concealment beyond the normal period will be addressed, so that, for instance, if somebody builds a bungalow behind a haystack, the fact that it has been there for longer than three years will make no difference in respect of enforcement. We will also be able to offer letters of comfort to landowners who are not involved in unauthorised action, and we are increasing penalties—and we are increasing penalties with regard to fly-posting and unauthorised advertising, too.

Gavin Williamson: We in South Staffordshire have to deal with the problem of illegal Gypsy and Traveller sites. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that these powers will help local councils such as mine deal more effectively and quickly with such sites?

Eric Pickles: Certainly, these powers will help, along with the new planning guidance on Gypsy and Traveller sites, but it is important to understand that the new measures will help not only the planning authority, but Gypsies and Travellers, the vast majority of whom are on legal sites, obey the law and do their best to integrate with their neighbours. Unfortunately, however, a small minority have abused the system, and I get complaints about that from both sides of the House. From 6 April, these new powers will help, and it is to be hoped that we can once again have a much more level playing field.

Marcus Jones: I have always believed in the right to protest, but does my right hon. Friend agree that nobody should have the right to set up permanent squats, such as those we have seen in Parliament square and at St Paul’s over recent years?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. As he will be aware, we recently amended legislation to give councils stronger powers to use byelaws to tackle tent encampments such as those that blighted Parliament square. I am engaged in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and am actively looking into other ways in which councils and police practice and powers can be strengthened.

Kerry McCarthy: In Bristol, the problem is not so much that the planning department lacks the powers; rather, it is that it lacks the willpower to take enforcement action. Many constituents come to me utterly frustrated that dwelling houses are being built in people’s back gardens, clearly by flaunting the planning guidance. What can be done to address this problem?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady makes a very reasonable point about these so-called beds in sheds. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government recently had a meeting with a number of local authorities to look into ways in which the problem might be effectively dealt with. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that there are more than adequate existing powers to deal with it, and as she rightly points out, the issue has been a lack of willpower. One authority—I shall not name it—has, frankly, let this get out of hand in a two-year process, so that the problem is now very difficult indeed to deal with.

Tristram Hunt: Can the Secretary of State update the House on when we will receive version two of the national planning policy framework, so that we in this Chamber can enjoy the massive, 180° copper-bottomed U-turn at the same time as the press?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman may find himself spinning alone on that—but the answer is very soon.

Andrew Love: What comfort can the Secretary of State give my constituents, who, like those in Bristol, are affected by a blizzard of small extensions that the local authority never seems to be able to deal with? Surely there must be powers at the centre to get local authorities to take this matter seriously?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) was referring to the new phenomenon of sheds in people’s back gardens, whereby people are often paying over the odds for substandard accommodation in very cramped conditions, and are largely being exploited by their landlords. There is permitted development for some extensions. If the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) feels that there are developments in his constituency that exceed what is permitted, perhaps we could have a word about them outside the Chamber.

Private Rented Sector

Jim Cunningham: What assessment he has made of the (a) affordability, (b) length of tenure and (c) standards of housing afforded to tenants in the private rented sector.

Andrew Gwynne: What assessment he has made of the (a) affordability, (b) length of tenure and (c) standards of housing afforded to tenants in the private rented sector.

Grant Shapps: The latest report of the English housing survey was published on 9 February. It shows that rents in the private sector have reduced in real terms, that standards have improved and that only 8% of tenancies are terminated before the tenants chose so choose.

Jim Cunningham: Leaving aside the report, may I ask the Minister what he is doing to drive up standards in the private sector, particularly in relation to rogue landlords?

Grant Shapps: As was indicated in the previous exchange with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have just held a meeting with the interested parties about rogue landlords. They are a matter of considerable concern, and I will be pulling together all the powers and issuing a booklet on that shortly. The hon. Gentleman rightly asks about the standards, and I can tell him that the number of non-decent homes in the private rented sector has fallen from 47% in 2006 to 37%.

Andrew Gwynne: Given what the Minister has just said, why do his Government seem intent on removing further protections from private tenants, who, in my constituency in particular, are at the mercy of rogue landlords? Should he not be protecting those hard-working tenants and driving up standards in the private rented sector?

Grant Shapps: Although he speaks with great passion, the hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong, because I am not removing any of the protections from landlords or tenants in the private rented sector. It is worth remembering that actual measures consistently show that people are happier in the private rented sector than in the social sector, which might surprise him. I can also tell him that 90% of tenancies are ended by the tenant, not by the landlord.

Jack Dromey: Both the Housing Minister and the Prime Minister, out of touch with reality, have asserted on the Floor of the House of Commons that rents are falling in the private rented sector. An analysis conducted by the House of Commons Library reveals that in 90% of local authorities in England, in all nine regions, rents are rising or staying the same. Will the Housing Minister now admit to the 1.1 million families struggling to pay their rent that he got it wrong?

Grant Shapps: The LSL survey shows that in the three months through to January rents actually fell, but we do not have to believe LSL—[Interruption.] There was rightly some scepticism there—LSL measures only buy to let—so let us instead look at the absolutely authoritative figures recently produced by the English housing survey, which show that in real terms rents have fallen in the past year.

Council Tax Benefit Localisation (Stretford and Urmston)

Kate Green: What assessment he has made of the effect of council tax benefit localisation on families in Stretford and Urmston constituency.

Bob Neill: An impact assessment is on my Department’s website. These reforms will create stronger incentives for councils to get people back into work and will help to pay off the budget deficit we inherited from the previous Administration. This Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable in society. We have made it clear that pensioners should be protected and that any changes should help to support work incentives.

Kate Green: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, the budget for council tax benefit is being cut by 10% from 2013-14, so how can he guarantee that every hour of work will pay for the working poor in my constituency and that they will not be impacted by this budget cut?

Bob Neill: I have made it clear that we intend to protect the most vulnerable, but, equally, the hon. Lady has to recognise that spending on council tax benefit more than doubled between 1997 and 2010. That needs to be reduced as part of the strategy to lower the deficit that we inherited, in order to get the country back on track. We intend to do that in a proportionate and measured fashion, to protect the most vulnerable.

Helen Jones: Is the Minister prepared to apologise to the more than 10,000 people in the local authority area of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), many of whom are families with children, whose council tax will rise as a direct result of his policy? Given that families in Stretford and Urmston will, like other families, lose an average of £580 a year as a result of changes to be introduced in April and that, scandalously, 930 adults in that constituency alone risk losing all their tax credits if they cannot find extra hours of work, is it not about time the Government abandoned this tax increase for the poorest families, instead of obsessing about cutting tax for those on more than £150,000 a year?

Bob Neill: The apology should come from those who created the record deficit in the first place. The hon. Lady might also like to apologise for the inconsistency in standing at the last general election on a manifesto that promised to cut housing benefit when she says nothing now about how she would make reductions and nothing about how one can reform housing benefit without reforming council tax benefit, which goes hand in hand with it.

Clive Betts: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I point out to the Chair of the Select Committee that the question relates exclusively to Stretford and Urmston, from which Sheffield South
	East is a little distant. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and I am sure that he will tailor his question accordingly.

Clive Betts: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that his proposals on council tax benefits potentially affect Stretford and Urmston and other constituencies up and down the country. The Minister is aware that Capita wrote to local authorities on 12 January, saying it had real concerns about its ability to deliver IT systems in time to meet the changes proposed for April next year. Is the Minister not aware that authorities could end up with a real risk of system failure, affecting tens of thousands of low-income families? Is not the real answer to delay these measures for at least 12 months?

Bob Neill: I have in front of me the letter that Capita sent to all local authorities in the country, and it points out that the reforms are deliverable if we can bring forward the regulations and detailed schemes in time. To that end, we have set up an officer-level working group to discuss these matters with officials from the local government sector.

Private Rented Sector (Young Homebuyers)

Graham Jones: What assessment he has made of the effect of the number of properties in the private rented sector on young people attempting to purchase a home.

Grant Shapps: In 2011, in terms of value, buy-to-let mortgages accounted for just 8% of total loans for home purchases. The biggest barrier to home ownership for many young people is not that, but the need to raise a deposit. That is why I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the NewBuy scheme, which we launched this morning.

Graham Jones: Obviously, I am aware that over the weekend the Government announced the home buy scheme for new build, which is a shadow of the sub-prime lending that went on previously, so I advise caution. The private rented sector, however, has added about 6% to the value of properties. Does the Minister agree that the issue is rising house prices and the cost of housing, not the availability of mortgages?

Grant Shapps: Just to clarify one point, sub-prime lending happened when people who could not afford to pay a mortgage back were lent money, sometimes as much as 120% of the value of the property. That is nothing to do with today’s NewBuy scheme. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in the private rented sector in particular. He makes a lot of very good and serious points about it and I can inform him that this Friday I intend to come and see him in his constituency to see the problems for myself.

Chris Williamson: I wonder what will shake the Housing Minister out of his complacency. Surveys show that 90% of private sector tenants would prefer to be living under another form of tenure, but his policies are trapping more and more people in private rented accommodation, paying ever-increasing rents. Despite his rhetoric, the Housing Minister is failing those tenants and failing to achieve his claims
	that this Government would build more homes than Labour achieved. When will he get a grip on this housing crisis and stop making empty announcements that fail to live up to expectations?

Grant Shapps: I have certainly been shaken out of any sense of complacency by that question, given that it came from a member of a party under whose government we saw house building crash to its lowest level since the 1920s. I can report to the House this afternoon that in the past year alone house building starts in England went up by 25% compared with those in 2009.

Empty Homes

Peter Aldous: What steps he is taking to promote the refurbishment of empty and vacant homes.

Stephen Gilbert: What plans he has to bring empty homes back into use.

Andrew Stunell: Last week we announced £70 million of funding that will bring more than 5,600 homes back into use as affordable housing. That is part of our wider strategy for bringing empty homes back into use, which was set out in the Government’s housing strategy for England last autumn.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. The housing department of Waveney district council is doing great work with limited resources, working with the private sector to bring empty homes back into occupation. Will my hon. Friend meet the department and me to find out more about that scheme with a view to its being rolled out across the country?

Andrew Stunell: According to the reports from Waveney district council to the Department, it currently has 983 long-term empty homes, so it certainly has work to do. I would be delighted to meet council representatives in due course to see what they are doing. I encourage every local authority to take full advantage of the new homes bonus that is available for bringing empty homes back into use and of the funding streams of £70 million and a further £50 million that we have announced, details of which will be announced shortly.

Stephen Gilbert: Although I welcome the £120 million that my hon. Friend has just mentioned, he will know that there are 10,000 empty properties in Cornwall, 40% of which have been empty for more than six months. Will he meet me and a representative of Cornwall council to make sure that local and national Government can work together to tackle this scandal in Cornwall?

Andrew Stunell: It looks as though I am in for a few journeys to different corners of the country. I would be delighted to go to Cornwall—or for the hon. Gentleman to bring representatives here. Cornwall has 3,800 long-term empty homes and I very much hope that Cornwall council will take advantage of the incentives that we are offering and that we propose to offer through the empty homes premium.

Chi Onwurah: Your Homes Newcastle tells me that of the 4,000 properties standing empty across the city, 99% are in the private sector. Private landlords often prefer to let them stand empty rather than let them to local families at lower rates than they have demanded from students. Constituents raise this with me all the time; how do I explain to them why the Government have decided to extend to two years the period before which local authorities can take action?

Andrew Stunell: The system for empty dwellings management orders remains in place and they can be brought into effect after two years, but there has been limited use of them so far. However, there are other incentives and penalties that we believe will be more effective more quickly. There is certainly an incentive on local authorities to work hard to bring empty homes into use because they will get a new homes bonus for that. If the consultation we are carrying out moves ahead in the right direction, the empty homes premium will be a strong incentive for home owners to bring their homes into use rather than paying that premium.

Local High Streets

Andrew Bridgen: What steps his Department is taking to support local high streets.

Simon Hart: What steps his Department is taking to support local high streets.

Eric Pickles: The independent Portas review covered many issues affecting high streets. We will publish our response in the spring, but in the mean time we have introduced measures to support high streets through business rate relief, and local authorities have new powers to levy business rate discounts.

Andrew Bridgen: As in many town centres across the country, retailers in Coalville in my constituency have struggled in recent years to compete with out-of-town shopping centres. To tackle that decline the North West Leicestershire chamber of commerce has been established to breathe new life into the town. Does my right hon. Friend have any advice or help from central Government for such groups to aid them in their worthy task?

Eric Pickles: That is an excellent undertaking. We sometimes forget that shopping centres are what makes home and are what communities tend to gather around. We have set up a competition to select pilot areas to bring new life into town centres and I hope that my hon. Friend’s authority will apply.

Simon Hart: Tenby and Pembroke in my constituency are absolutely critical to the economic recovery in the area but do not always have access to the Government initiatives that are available in England, particularly the Portas pilots. Is the Minister working with the Welsh Assembly to make sure that Welsh high streets are not left behind English high streets?

Eric Pickles: Yes, indeed we are working with the Welsh Assembly and there is a reasonable indication that the Welsh authorities might take up the scheme.

David Lammy: The Secretary of State will recognise that Mary Portas recommended changing the planning use category for betting shops. There is a mini-Las Vegas appearing across our cities, with teenagers ending up in our betting shops. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to do something about it?

Eric Pickles: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We had an opportunity to walk down the high street together, where he showed me the problem. We are taking action. We are currently consulting on user class and I hope he will take the opportunity to make a powerful case.

Ann Coffey: Stockport is bidding to become one of the Portas pilots. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that, with its ancient market and other historic heritage sites, it is uniquely placed to develop a new offer to shoppers, so may I urge him to give his fullest consideration to Stockport’s bid?

Eric Pickles: Stockport is indeed close to my heart. It is the very gem of the north-west and I hope it puts up a very good bid, as nothing would give me greater pleasure than to grant that status to this magnificent town.

Duncan Hames: The Minister can also expect an enthusiastic bid to be a Portas pilot from Chippenham in my constituency. In order to maintain the creative momentum from the Portas review, what plans does he have to reinvest in town centres and high streets more of the business rates that they earn?

Eric Pickles: Chippenham is the apple of my eye, a wonderful town. My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. Although the Portas review will help, we are giving local authorities the chance to be in the driving seat, to see that where they generate income they will be able to apply that locally. Increasingly, the Government have demonstrated localism, not just by words but by deeds, by shifting the power and particularly by shifting the finance closer to the people.

House Building

Huw Irranca-Davies: What estimate he has made of the number of new homes which will be built in 2012.

Andrew Stunell: The Government do not make forecasts of house building, but we look carefully at what has happened in the past. In 2007 there were 178,000 housing starts. By 2009, the last full year of the previous Government, that had crashed to 78,340. In 2011, the first full year of the coalition Government, it had risen to 98,250—a rise of 25%.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for that array of facts, but the Housing Minister said that the gold standard by which this Government would be judged was building more houses than Labour, yet,
	according to the recorded figures, in the first 18 months of this Government new housing completions are down 11% compared with the last 18 months of the Labour Government. Has the Minister devalued his own gold standard?

Andrew Stunell: In 2011 the figure included 1,500 local authority starts. Interestingly, in 2009 there were only 150 local authority housing starts. Since September the Homes and Communities Agency has completed agreements on 112 social and affordable housing projects worth £1.6 billion. The first of the homes will start on site in April.

New Homes Bonus

Nick Raynsford: What assessment he has made of the difference between the number of (a) new homes being built and (b) units qualifying for the new homes bonus; and if he will make a statement. [R]

Grant Shapps: The new homes bonus is calculated in respect of net additions to the effective housing stock, including new build, conversions and empty homes brought back into use.

Nick Raynsford: I draw attention to my interests in the register. I am glad the Minister is beginning to look at the discrepancy in his figures. According to the written answer he gave me on 29 February, in nine local authority areas in England the number of homes qualifying in 2011 for the affordable housing component of the new homes bonus exceeded the total number of homes for which new homes bonus was awarded. As this is clearly total nonsense, will the Minister explain what is going on? Were his statisticians having an off day, or is this another case of the Government not having a clue what they are doing?

Grant Shapps: Unless the right hon. Gentleman is accusing local authorities of being misleading in the paperwork they return, the new homes bonus must surely be, through the council tax base form, the single most accurate way of knowing how many new dwellings there are in this country. I know that he insists that it is something to do with D to H band homes being deregistered and then reregistered as smaller homes, so I have checked the figures and can tell him that they have been falling; the number of deregistrations has gone from 19,000 to 16,000 to 15,000-plus in each of the past three years, categorically disproving his theory once and for all.

Right to Buy

Rob Wilson: What plans he has to promote the right to buy for tenants of social housing.

Grant Shapps: I have today announced that we will increase the maximum right-to-buy discount cap for tenants to £75,000 across England from 2 April this year, subject to parliamentary approval. The Government are on the side of those who aspire to own their own homes.

Rob Wilson: The previous shadow Secretary of State slammed home ownership as “the English disease”, which is probably one of the reasons right-to-buy sales fell significantly under the previous Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that home ownership, whether stimulated by the NewBuy guarantee or the right to buy, is not a disease but something that fosters pride and aspiration in our communities?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to explain that the right to buy was savagely cut under the previous Administration, to the point where very few sales went through each year. Today, the coalition Government are reinvigorating and rebooting the right to buy, which will now help up to 100,000 people purchase their own home, with discounts of up to £75,000, and with the money being used to replace them with new homes on a one-for-one basis. That, together with the NewBuy guarantee, will ensure that a further 100,000 people will be able to buy their own home. We are on the side of aspirant people who wish to buy the roof over their heads.

Alison Seabeck: Will the Minister explain and clarify his recent announcement on the £75,000 cap? He spoke today of replacement on a one-for-one basis. Does that mean that he does not mean like-for-like replacement in the same area?

Grant Shapps: Where local authorities can provide the new homes in the same area, we will certainly look to keep the money locally and build in the area. The hon. Lady, as a previous shadow housing Minister—one of the eight I have faced—knows that the money will be used for the affordable rent programme, which will enable us to build 170,000 affordable homes for rent, and this will give us another 100,000 on top of that—far more than the previous Administration built over 13 years.

David Ward: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked a question. He cannot have forgotten the fact, because I certainly have not.

Economic Growth

Neil Carmichael: What steps he has taken to encourage local authorities to promote business and economic growth.

Eric Pickles: Local authorities have a key role in supporting local economic growth and promoting business in their areas. We have ensured that local places will receive the benefits of growth with the retention of business rates from April 2013. We will also pay £432 million to local authorities through the new homes bonus in 2012-13. We have also established 39 local enterprise partnerships, in which local authorities work with businesses to promote economic growth.

Neil Carmichael: I thank the Secretary of State for that encouraging set of policies. Does he agree that local authorities must make planning decisions connected with business development quickly, and that they should be underpinned by rigorous and timely economic analysis?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. Local authorities will now be able to apply the proceeds of that growth, so their local populations will expect them to make timely decisions. Now that power has moved closer to local authorities, they have much greater responsibility to deliver these decisions on time.

Bill Esterson: The Mary Portas review will help with business growth. In my constituency, Formby has a parish council and Maghull has a town council. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether parish and town councils will qualify as accountable bodies for funding bids under the Portas review, or will the bids have to go through the borough or district councils?

Eric Pickles: I am afraid to say that, despite Formby being the apple of my eye and a wonderful place to invest, the process will be at borough level.

Social Housing

Henry Smith: What plans he has to tackle the abuse of social housing tenancies.

Grant Shapps: We have set out proposals to give social landlords the tools to identify and recover properties that have been subject to fraudulent activity via sub-letting.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. What support can his Department give to local authorities to stop the abusive activity of illegal sub-letting and of those who over-occupy their social tenancy homes, perhaps with friends or family?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the scale of the problem, which is enormous, perhaps a multi-billion pound per annum scandal, and this Government are absolutely determined to crack down on it. I introduced a consultation on sub-letting, stating that our preferred option is to criminalise the activity. We intend to do exactly what is outlined in the consultation and, in doing so, to end the scandal that means that such homes do not go to the people who rightly need them.

Onshore Wind Farms

Nigel Adams: What guidance his Department has issued to the Planning Inspectorate on planning appeals concerning onshore wind farms.

Greg Clark: The Planning Inspectorate has received the same advice as local authorities: the Government’s commitment to abolish the regional spatial strategies, including the targets for renewable energy, can be taken into account as a material consideration in planning decisions.

Nigel Adams: Has the Planning Inspectorate been instructed to take into account the views of local residents, campaign groups and communities during the appeal process?

Greg Clark: As I suggested, the Localism Act 2011 abolishes top-down imposition and releases local communities to have their say, and with the new planning framework it will be unambiguously clear that it is local communities that do things their way.

Topical Questions

John Pugh: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Eric Pickles: Last week we announced that the abolition of the Audit Commission will save councils £250 million over the next five years in lower audit fees, so cutting quangos does save money; we have finally abolished Labour’s ports tax, which threatened to scupper England’s export trade, so cutting taxes saves jobs; and, finally, we have welcomed more than 3,500 applications so far for diamond jubilee street parties, promoting our guide to organising a street party, so it shows that cutting red tape allows more bunting to be put up.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that welcome news, but as part of his duties as Secretary of State will he defend the right of Christian local authority workers discreetly to wear crosses or crucifixes at work, just as he would I hope defend the right of Sikhs to wear the turban, given a pending European judgment?

Eric Pickles: It is certainly my view that, provided any object does not get in the way of someone doing their job, a discreet display of their religion is something that we should welcome.

Hilary Benn: Given the great public interest in the national planning policy framework, we would all like to know which construction and property companies the Secretary of State and Communities and Local Government Ministers have met in the past few months, especially as the Electoral Commission revealed that firms in the sector gave just over £500,000 to the Conservative party between July and December last year. The public unfortunately cannot find out that information because no details of meetings between CLG Ministers and others have been published since June 2011. May I ask the Secretary of State, who is responsible for publication, why that is?

Bob Neill: All matters will be published in due course. The My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), the Minister responsible for planning and decentralisation, made clear the persons who are members of the practitioners group and with whom we openly consulted. Nothing is hidden, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman chooses to bark up such a completely fictitious tree.

Hilary Benn: That will not really do, and I am sorry that the Secretary of State has once again ducked answering a question, because he is very keen to lecture people on transparency but, it seems, not so keen on it himself. The Housing Minister promised the House a month ago that the information was about to appear, but as of midday today—nine months on from the
	previous disclosure—there was still no sign of it on the Department’s website, even though the ministerial code clearly states that such information must be published “at least quarterly”. When is the Secretary of State going to start practising what he preaches, especially on something as important as the future of our towns and countryside?

Bob Neill: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and information on the matter will be published very shortly. I point out that this Department was the first to publish online all spend over £500, so our record bears comparison with anyone’s.

John Stevenson: The Department is currently consulting on changes to building regulations. In order to help to reduce energy costs for home owners and to create a proper market in renewables, will the Minister consider making solar panels compulsory for all new builds?

Andrew Stunell: I share my hon. Friend’s desire to make sure that homes are more energy efficient and that energy bills fall. We have already raised building standards by 25%, and we are consulting on the next step; I hope that he will contribute to the consultation. If we implement the proposals in the consultation, we will need people to use renewable energy sources in building schemes, and that will go a long way towards what he is seeking to achieve.

David Crausby: We all want house building to get moving again and first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder, but is it not true that 95%, and even higher, mortgages were what went wrong with the housing market in the first place? Will not any attempt artificially to prop up house building with Government subsidy come back and bite us at some point?

Grant Shapps: As I said earlier, the problem with the housing market was sub-prime lending, or lending to people who could not afford to pay back the mortgages, not 95% mortgages, which operated perfectly well in this country for many decades. The criteria for lending are now much stricter, and nobody will get a mortgage who is not properly able to pay it, not only with today’s low interest rates but with interest rates that are clearly likely to rise at some point in future.

Priti Patel: With the London elections on the horizon, should Londoners elect a Mayor who has frozen the Greater London authority’s share of council tax, keeping more money in people’s pockets, or a man who is more concerned with finding ways of dodging paying his own taxes while increasing everybody else’s taxes?

Eric Pickles: Personally, I am backing Boris. I was very shocked to find out about Ken Livingstone’s tax arrangements. It seems very odd for somebody who is standing for Mayor to have a way of avoiding paying tax. In particular, I hope that he has a reasonable
	explanation about the two people he employed and why those matters were not properly reported to the Electoral Commission.

Emma Reynolds: Some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Wolverhampton live in appalling conditions in the private rented sector. Self-regulation is not working, and the Housing Minister’s booklet is unlikely to change anything. When are the Government going to recognise that this sector needs regulating, with, in particular, a national compulsory register of landlords?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to be concerned about the conditions that people live in, and I share that concern very strongly. It is interesting that Labour never introduced a compulsory register in 13 years. It is also interesting that when I came into office and asked to see the sum of work that had been done by my predecessors, the answer was none. There are good reasons private registers would not work. There are 1.5 million landlords, many of whom are, for example, private individuals letting out one or two rooms. It would be an unworkable system requiring an enormous quango. The answer is to use the existing legislation properly. I will help to advise the hon. Lady’s local authority on precisely how to do that if that is helpful.

Tony Baldry: Since the reign of Mary Tudor and throughout the vicissitudes of history, Banbury council has started all its meetings with prayer and a recitation of the 84th Psalm. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the general power of competence he has granted local councils will enable those that wish to continue to start their meetings with prayer to do so?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is a very distinguished man, and perhaps only someone of his greatly distinguished nature could regard the reign of Mary Tudor as topical. Nevertheless, he makes a good point. We enjoy the power of prayer in this Chamber under the Bill of Rights 1688, and what is good enough for us should be good enough for councils. That is why I was pleased to introduce the general power of competence. The authorities that do not qualify will make arrangements very soon.

Hazel Blears: I believe that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Minister with responsibility for fire and rescue services, is an eminently reasonable man. In the Adjournment debate last week, he will have heard the strength of feeling expressed on behalf of metropolitan fire and rescue authorities. The grant for Greater Manchester has been cut by 12.5%, whereas the grant for Cheshire has increased by 2%, when Greater Manchester has more fires, more deprivation and more poverty. I believe that settlement to be grossly unfair. Will the Minister, as a reasonable man, change the settlement for years three and four to protect people in metropolitan areas?

Bob Neill: It is impossible for me to approach the right hon. Lady other than in a spirit of reason. I gently point out to her that the funding results come from the application of a formula that essentially we inherited from the previous Government. It assigns significantly
	more money to metropolitan fire and rescue authorities than to those in the counties, and we have adjusted it to give greater weight to density, which advantages urban areas. We are looking to make further reforms when we bring in business rate retention, which will fund all fire authorities.

Julian Smith: Communities across north Yorkshire are being hassled, bullied and, in some cases, bribed by wind developers that are carrying out scoping exercises. Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), will the Minister confirm that the revised national planning policy framework will give communities, such as those in north Yorkshire, the absolute final say on where wind farms should be situated?

Greg Clark: The problem at the moment is that there is imposition from the regional strategies. We are getting rid of that. We take the view that if communities are involved in decisions, there can be a far better outcome than if planning decisions descend on them from above.

Jim Sheridan: Erskine is a charitable organisation in my constituency that provides work for and looks after disabled ex-service personnel. Unfortunately, due to the current financial difficulties, it is struggling to compete with the private sector. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives from Erskine to explore how local or central government procurement processes could be used to help these poor soldiers?

Eric Pickles: I will certainly organise meetings for the hon. Gentleman with the Local Government Association. Of course, 80% of charities receive no money from the state. I have noticed that the top five authorities for extending their funding for charities are Conservative authorities and that no Labour authority appears in the top 20. [ Interruption. ] I say to the hon. Gentleman that if they are not looking for money, the meeting will be even quicker.

Jonathan Lord: I welcome what the Secretary of State said about unauthorised development by Travellers on green-belt land. May I press him a little further? In the village of Normandy and the surrounding area in my constituency, a spate of temporary permissions have been given on appeal to unauthorised development on green-belt land. Will his new rules ensure that the land is returned to green belt in due course?

Eric Pickles: The old planning guidance gave Gypsies and Travellers certain exemptions with regard to the green belt. It is our intention to repeal those exemptions.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister help me with the problems facing private tenants in my constituency? Almost a third of my constituents are private tenants who pay very high rents in flats and houses that are expensive to heat and often badly maintained. Does he not think that it is time that we had much tougher regulation of the private rented
	sector, including rent regulation, because rents are astonishingly high for people who are unable to save or to move on from the private rented sector?

Grant Shapps: I had a lot of sympathy with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. He and I have discussed this matter before. If we introduce rent controls, which seems to be what he and other Opposition Members are calling for, we know exactly what will happen. Rent controls were introduced after the war and the private rented sector shrunk from 50% of the market to just 8%. When rent controls were removed, that doubled to 16%. The latest figures from the English housing survey show that it is on its way up from there. Rent controls would restrict the market and make it more expensive for exactly the constituents whom the hon. Gentleman is trying to protect.

Brandon Lewis: As a result of poor contractual arrangements set up by the Labour Government, the East of England Development Agency has received bonuses of more than £250,000, despite it being scrapped. Does the Minister agree that local enterprise partnerships are already showing that not only are they less bureaucratic, but they give a much better return on public investment?

Greg Clark: They certainly are. The local enterprise partnership in my hon. Friend’s constituency is chaired by Andy Wood of Adnams who, without any bonus, gives fantastic leadership from the private sector to a very successful local enterprise partnership.

Simon Danczuk: Everybody knows that Rochdale is the birthplace of co-operation and has been at the forefront of retail innovation. Once again, it has the potential to create a fantastic town centre. Does the Secretary of State agree that Rochdale is right to work towards being a Mary Portas pioneer?

Eric Pickles: The Rochdale pioneers were of course immensely important in retailing. If I may confide in the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that Rochdale is the apple of my eye in the north-west. I hope, if only for the sake of romance, that it can put up a very good case. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to award the pilot scheme to Rochdale.

David Ruffley: Residents of Westbury avenue in Bury St Edmunds want to hold a jubilee street party, but local council officers have told them that road signs will have to be erected in that very quiet suburban road at a cost of £396. Will the Secretary of State please assure me that he will do everything to slash such pointless pettifogging bureaucracy?

Eric Pickles: I can assure my hon. Friend that those regulations have gone. The bunting police have gone, and there is no need to put up expensive signs or do a traffic survey. Why to goodness cannot we simply get on with celebrating the Queen’s diamond jubilee and recognising that such roads can be closed with the minimum of disruption? Let us just enjoy the day.

Debbie Abrahams: We now know that black and minority ethnic groups are being disproportionately affected by the
	flatlining economy. According to the Office for National Statistics, the unemployment level for young black men now stands at more than 56%. Will the Secretary of State explain how his integration strategy and programmes such as the big lunch and community music days will address that?

Andrew Stunell: The integration strategy is far wider than that. I point the hon. Lady to the Government’s social mobility and equality strategies and the Youth United project, and I remind her that important announcements are coming about ensuring that every young person, regardless of their ethnic background, has access to education or employment.

Bob Russell: Further to Questions 13 and 14, which were about Government support for town centres, will the Secretary of State take under his wing corner shops and neighbourhood shopping parades by lowering business rates and offsetting that through a levy on out-of-town retail stores’ car parks?

Eric Pickles: We have indeed reduced business rates and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a discount available for small businesses. In the Localism Act 2011,
	we have given local authorities the ability to offer a discount and removed car parking restrictions. In case he is in any doubt, I should say that Colchester is the apple of my eye.

Gloria De Piero: Do Ministers agree that spending £80,000 on changing a logo, as Conservative-controlled Nottinghamshire county council has, is an irresponsible use of cash when money is so tight?

Grant Shapps: The good thing about Nottingham county council is that we can see what it is spending. It is a shame that the same cannot be said of Nottingham city council, the only council in the country that refuses to publish its expenditure.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid demand has exceeded supply, as is often the case. We must now move on.

Afghanistan (Civilian Killings)

David Winnick: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on what discussions he has had with his US counterpart over the killing of civilians in Afghanistan.

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is of course referring to the very regrettable events in Kandahar on Sunday morning. We are all deeply shocked and saddened by the killing and wounding of Afghan civilians in Kandahar province. It was undoubtedly an appalling tragedy, and I know the House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the victims and their families. We support the investigation into the attack.
	The Secretary of State is currently overseas on official business but has regular contact with a number of Defence counterparts, including Secretary Panetta in the United States. The Secretary of State last spoke to the US Defence Secretary on Saturday about other matters, prior to this incident.
	At this tragic time, I can only echo the words of General Allen, commander of the international security assistance force, and inform the House that the attack
	“in no way represents the values of ISAF and coalition troops or the abiding respect we feel for the Afghan people.”
	These have been a difficult few weeks in Afghanistan, with the Koran-burning, the tragic loss of six of our own soldiers in a Warrior and now this. I was able to see for myself the week before last the progress that we are making, and that the UK and ISAF remain resolute in our purpose.

David Winnick: As the Minister says, we are all deeply shocked and horrified by the news that an American soldier—a staff soldier, I believe—went out in the night and murdered 16 innocent civilians in cold blood. Is it the case that the murders were in fact carried out in the night, and that the victims were asleep in their beds? Of the casualties—the victims of this mass murder—will the Minister confirm that nine were children and three were women? It has been reported—perhaps the Minister has the latest information—that some of the children were no older than two or three years of age. Were the bodies burned by the murderer? Perhaps we could have information on that too.
	Obviously, as the Minister has said, all hon. Members are deeply saddened and send our sympathy to the families of the victims. I accept entirely that this is not in any way the policy of the NATO forces and certainly not that of the United States. Nevertheless, as he said, this follows other incidents and tragedies in which civilians have been killed by US troops, and US troops have urinated on dead Afghans and burned the Koran. That was a despicable act in itself, but it also took the lives of other innocent people who were killed by the Taliban in revenge.
	Will the Minister accept—he mentioned the six brave British soldiers who died last week—that, overall, there is a growing feeling in this country, and no doubt in the United States, that this is an unwinnable war? People
	certainly no longer accept the official line that our security depends on our military continuing its military role in Afghanistan.
	President Obama and the Prime Minister meet this week. Would it not be wise for them to accept the strong feeling that this war has gone on for more than 10 years and is not winnable? Apart from the tragic incidents that we are referring to, the need is for the Afghans themselves to find a solution to their political and military problems. After 10 years, outside military intervention is much more the problem than the solution.
	I again make the point that so many people, including me—I do not know how many in the House of Commons feel the same, but I suppose I am not alone—simply no longer accept the official line, which I accept was also the previous Government’s official line, that our security depends on British troops fighting in Afghanistan. That will not help the fight against terrorism; it perhaps even helps the terrorists.

Nick Harvey: In answer to some of the factual questions the hon. Gentleman asked at the beginning, ISAF has confirmed that 13 Afghan citizens were killed in the attack. However, open source reports indicate that up to 16 may have been killed. As he said, I understand that nine children were killed in the attack. I have no further information on the age of those children. It is understood that a further five civilians were wounded and are being treated in the military hospital at Kandahar.
	On the broader points that the hon. Gentleman makes, at the Lisbon summit ISAF drew up a time scale for the remainder of the combat operation in Afghanistan, which was reconfirmed at the NATO ministerial meeting two weeks ago. I believe that that is a realistic timetable for the remainder of our operation in Afghanistan.
	The progress that is being made in building up the Afghan national security forces is impressive—not only in scale but in their competence. They are developing a culture of leadership and planning more of the operations in which they are involved. The process of transition from ISAF security lead to ANSF security lead is progressing well so far. I believe, therefore, that we are on the right course and have the right security strategy. I think what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, though, is the widely held view that we need to find a political solution to the future of Afghanistan. Although progress on that has been disappointingly slow, there are now encouraging signs, and there is a realistic prospect that a political process will be under way within the time scale I am talking about.

Menzies Campbell: These are devastating events for the victims and their families which may well have long-term implications for ISAF between now and 2014. Does my hon. Friend accept that these events remind us of the fact that we ask our young men and women to deploy to circumstances that are difficult, dangerous and stressful? In our recruitment, we lay great stress on physical attributes, but is he satisfied that we are equally searching when it comes to the psychological component of recruitment? If not, is it not time for a review?

Nick Harvey: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that we demand exacting standards from our new military recruits, and they certainly have to
	pass physical tests, among others. We are always on the lookout for signs of people suffering psychological stress—that occurs at every point—and considerable progress has been made in recent years on removing some of the stigma that attaches to anybody in those very exacting circumstances suffering from the effects of stress. There should never be any shame attached to that. We are making progress in identifying it, in extending a sympathetic arm to those suffering from stress and in improving the long-term assistance given to them when they return to the UK, because the sorts of incidents that some of them will have witnessed will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

Kevan Jones: The killing of 16 innocent civilians in Afghanistan yesterday was an appalling act, and I join the Minister in rightly sending our thoughts to the families of the victims of this incident. The information we have so far is that it was the act of an isolated individual outside the chain of command, and it is important that we do not draw any wider conclusions about the conduct of US or other ISAF forces, who act with unparalleled bravery and professionalism in the conduct of their mission in Afghanistan.
	We have all heard the warnings from the Taliban of reprisal attacks on coalition forces. In the light of that, may I ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the increased threat posed to UK armed forces and civilian personnel working in Afghanistan? Have any operational changes been made—notably on ending the use of night raids—and has additional security been put in place to protect diplomatic and civilian staff working on behalf of the UK Government?
	The influence of ISAF forces in stabilising Afghanistan depends on the trust of the Afghan people. This act has clearly put that trust, carefully built over the past 10 years, in jeopardy. Will the Minister say what discussions the Government have had with ISAF counterparts on measures that can be put in place to build trust in the light of this appalling incident? The post-2014 planning will determine the success of our mission in Afghanistan, so will he say a little more about what early assessment ISAF has made of the impact of these events on negotiations over ISAF’s presence post 2014?
	Although the tragedy is undoubtedly a blow to the ISAF mission, what about the UK’s mission and British public opinion? Will the Minister tell the country more clearly what the UK’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan will be and what type of nation he expects to leave when the draw-down takes place post 2014?
	We have always approached the issue of Afghanistan from a bipartisan standpoint, which it is important to do while we have our forces in harm’s way there. We welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to raise the issue of Afghanistan at his meeting in Washington with President Obama this week, and we look forward to seeing greater details of the plans for post 2014.

Nick Harvey: It is important to stress that there is a US and Afghan investigation now under way into exactly what happened. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this would appear to be the action of one isolated individual, completely outwith the control of the chain of command, and he is also absolutely right that it is in no way indicative of the behaviour of the rest of the ISAF forces who are there.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about force protection. We were already operating on an enhanced set-up for force protection in the light of the Koran-burning incident; following this incident, vigilance will be even greater, and at a local level, commanders on the ground will be making whatever sensible arrangements they think are necessary. Operations in the night are increasingly led by Afghan forces, and I think this is likely to be the case even more so in the foreseeable future.
	The hon. Gentleman quite rightly raised the issue of trust. It is absolutely essential to what we are doing that there is trust between the international forces, and the Afghan authorities and the Afghan people. There is no doubt whatever that that trust will have been tested severely by the incidents of the last few weeks. Of course, this is not one-way traffic, because we have seen incidents where both British and French troops have been killed by Afghan troops they were mentoring. These are delicate relationships, but I was impressed when I was there two weeks ago that the commander of ISAF took this aspect of his work extremely seriously and had been very quick to get on the front foot and go to President Karzai and the Afghan authorities to apologise and make clear the profound regret that he and the west felt for the incidents that have happened.
	As for the post-2014 situation, it is important that everybody understands—both in the west and in Afghanistan—that the end of western troops being in Afghanistan in a combat role does not mean the international community walking away from Afghanistan. It is certainly the case that we will continue to have troops stationed in Afghanistan, providing training and mentoring for Afghan troops. Specifically, we have made a commitment, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, to take the lead internationally in running the officer training programme from 2013 onwards. However, as we begin and continue the process of transition, we expect to see a greater number of international partners coming in and helping Afghanistan to build up, in terms of both aid and, increasingly, ordinary trade and economics. We cannot allow the setbacks of the last few weeks to put us off that overall objective, which in my view, notwithstanding all the pressures, remains on course.

Bob Stewart: We have got two years and about nine months left of combat operations in Afghanistan, and we have lost 404 soldiers so far. The idea that we can start challenging the plan to withdraw early worries me a great deal, because soldiers need certainty. It is needed for the officers to plan and for the soldiers to get used to it. It is going to be increasingly challenging for our soldiers over the next two years, as we move towards withdrawing from combat operations. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? We have got to support our soldiers utterly and completely. The plan is set and must now remain set.

Nick Harvey: Let me assure my hon. Friend that the internationally agreed plan remains firmly in place. It was reiterated two weeks ago at the NATO ministerial conference. It is important for all those who are engaged in the operations in Afghanistan to understand that the plan remains in place and that there is no question whatever of our cutting and running early because of these events or any others. Two out of five phases of
	transition—area by area, district by district—have so far taken place, and both appear broadly to have gone off very well. The three remaining phases will take us through this year and into next year. Within the time frame between now and 2014, the nature of the work that our troops are doing will increasingly shift to a supportive role, but they will still be there bearing arms until the end of 2014. It is important, particularly for those who grieve for the losses that we have suffered, that they should not believe that those losses have been in vain. We are not going to give up; we are going to see this through and finish the job off according to the internationally agreed plan.

David Miliband: May I return the Minister to the question of a political strategy, which he rightly says is the key to ending any insurgency? The Defence Secretary wrote in The Daily Telegraph last week that a political strategy could not succeed until the Afghan Government had established a position of strength. May I put it to the Minister that the difficulty with that is that the Afghan Government are seen by many Afghans as a significant part of the problem, and that the search for a position of strength defies the logic of a counter-insurgency, which is that one can achieve tactical advances in one part of a country while the insurgency strikes back elsewhere? Does he acknowledge that the best approach would be for the international community to appoint an international mediator with United Nations Security Council backing who could talk to those on all sides and frame the political strategy, both internal and regional, that is so desperately needed? Does he also acknowledge that, if we do not start working on that now, every day that passes will weaken the chances of establishing a stable Afghanistan that we can leave?

Nick Harvey: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s stress on the need for a political solution. During his time as Foreign Secretary, he did his best to promote such processes, but unfortunately he did not meet with a great deal of appetite elsewhere for getting them under way. Frankly, it has remained pretty tough going until relatively recently. Thankfully, some of the key stakeholders now seem to be showing a greater appetite for sitting down and participating in a political process. The Afghan Government are certainly more willing to do so than they have been in the past, and it looks as though the Pakistan Government might also be more willing to engage in such a process. The proposal to open a Taliban office in Qatar has served as a catalyst to focus people’s minds. The right hon. Gentleman was paraphrasing the Defence Secretary slightly; I do not think a political process has to await a situation in which the Afghan Government achieve a position of strength. Applying military pressure to the Taliban has probably made it more likely that they will be willing to sit down and join a political process, but any such process must be inclusive of all the elements in Afghanistan who need to buy into a long-term settlement, as well as all the elements in the region who will be vital to the delivery of peace on the ground in the years to come. We are a long way from achieving that, but progress is at last being made.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Accommodating the level of interest in this subject, given that there is important time-limited Back-Bench business to follow, will necessitate brevity, which will now be exemplified by Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis: I thought you might pick me for that, Mr Speaker.
	The Afghan Government and the Afghan people are rightly outraged by this atrocity, but does the Minister agree that the one bunch of people who have no right to promise revenge are the Taliban? It was their hosting of an international terrorist organisation that murdered thousands of men, women and children that led to the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.

Nick Harvey: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In addition to their past atrocities, the Taliban are also responsible for the great majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan—77% in the past year.

Denis MacShane: Two years and nine months is half the length of the second world war, and a plan that cannot be changed in the light of circumstances is barely worth the paper it is written on. The Minister has a hard job, and we are not here to criticise, but these incidents and atrocities are typical of the end of an occupation or a conflict. We cannot justify British soldiers dying between now and withdrawal. Does the Minister agree that we should honour the sacrifice of our men by ensuring that no more are sacrificed?

Nick Harvey: Nobody has said that we are adhering to a plan that cannot be changed. The point I have been at pains to make is that the plan has not been changed as yet. Of course we follow closely, as do the ISAF commanders, the situation on the ground. The plans will reflect the realities as we go forward. This is a process of transition. I said that we have gone through two of the five phases of transition—and it is broadly working. I have to say that the rate of casualties on our side has come down markedly. I simply do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right: if we were to pack up and leave now, it would make a mockery of everything that has been done to date.

Patrick Mercer: History has a way of repeating itself. Not only did six British soldiers die last week within miles of where 1,000 perished in 1880, but the garrison of Kandahar in the same year also carried out a series of isolated unpleasantnesses against the civilian population. Armies reflect society. Regrettably, we have to expect more of these sorts of isolated instances. Will the Minister therefore comment on the rumour that this incident is related to alcohol—exactly as it was with the incidents in 1880—and on what is being done in respect of our Muslim allies and on how we will control the consumption of alcohol among allied troops?

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting historical points, but asks me specifically whether we know of any connection between this incident and alcohol. I know of absolutely no such connection. It is, of course, the case that our forces in Afghanistan operate entirely dry; alcohol is not provided for them. I have no knowledge of alcohol having anything at all to do with this appalling incident.

Keith Vaz: The whole House is shocked by this terrible event, as are members of the British Afghani community, thousands of whom have settled in my Leicester constituency. This is the slaughter of the innocents. I understand that the father and son of this family survived these atrocities. In our discussions with the Americans over the next few days, we should urge on them the importance of supporting those who remain and the community they come from. I know there is going to be an investigation, but before that happens we need to do something to help this local community.

Nick Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—that the sense of grief that will grip communities in Kandahar will, of course, be felt by the diaspora of Afghan and Pashtun people, not least here in the UK. He is absolutely right that there is no need to await an investigation of exactly what happened before we begin to repair relations with those communities as far as we possibly can and to offer every possible support to the families and those grieving in the wake of this appalling incident. It is certainly the case that we will urge our allies to crack on and do that.

John Hemming: The Minister will be aware that a minority of the House, including myself, voted for withdrawal some time ago.
	In an asymmetric conflict, emotions are very important in driving people’s behaviour. Will the Minister agree to review the current strategy to identify whether that fact in itself could make it harder rather than easier to achieve our objectives in the long term?

Nick Harvey: The ISAF strategy is kept under constant review. I can reassure my hon. Friend that it will continue to be so, but I do not think it would make sense for us to be in a great hurry this week, in the aftermath of these incidents, to spring into some fundamental review. I can assure him, however, that the temperature is read constantly and that progress is assessed all the time. We will take stock of everything that happens as we continue to plan on an international basis what we will do for the remaining two and a half years.

Jeremy Corbyn: This is a terrible tragedy. It is not the first, and it will probably not be the last. Equal tragedies—such as the killing of wedding parties by drone aircraft, and so many others—compound the results of this the 11th year of the war. As neither the Minister nor his Secretary of State is able to say what success would be in Afghanistan, is it not time to bring forward the date of withdrawal, and to recognise that this has not been a profitable or a successful operation?

Nick Harvey: We are able to say what success would be. Success would be an orderly and successful handover of security to a competent and able Afghan national security force by the end of 2014. Many challenges will face us between now and then if we are to achieve what remains an ambitious target, but that is what success would look like, and that is the strategic goal in security terms towards which we are working. However, I repeat the point made by the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband): if there is to be a lasting peace in that part of the world,
	a political process is needed alongside the security strategy. Unless we have both, we will not secure the lasting peace that I think everyone in the House wants to see.

Julian Brazier: I share the horror felt by Members in all parts of the House at this ghastly incident, and endorse the policy supported by both Government and Opposition. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the show of solidarity by Angela Merkel at a time when her Government are suffering from a number of other pressures?

Nick Harvey: It is important for us to retain an international view. The ISAF strategy is one that we have drawn up together, so expressions of support from the German Government are of course very welcome. Essentially, the conclusion that was reached at the Lisbon conference was that we had gone in together and should come out together. That is what I mean when I say that we will agree with our ISAF partners exactly what the strategy and the timelines should be, and that we will act together according to our collective judgment of the progress that we are making.

Dave Watts: Does not the recent tragedy demonstrate that we need to speed up the process of transferring as much of Afghanistan as we can to Afghan control? Will the Minister give some indication of how many Pashtun soldiers will be in charge of Pashtun areas once the takeover has happened?

Nick Harvey: I do not think that the lesson to be drawn from this is that we should speed up a process which is moving as fast as it possibly can already. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Afghan national security forces are being grown from a cold start. I think that the progress they have made is remarkable: they have grown in number, but, far more impressively, they have grown in competence, in their quality of leadership, and in their ability to plan and execute operations. I think that hurrying the process at this stage, or passing the baton to them prematurely, would undermine all the progress that has been made. We are pushing the process of handover as fast as we possibly can, and if we were to cut and run now, we would risk undoing the progress that we have made.

Tobias Ellwood: I echo what has been said about the improvements to the Afghan national army. We should not forget that that is due not just to British forces, but to the American forces who have trained them. We should also not forget that this was an isolated incident, and that more than 2,000 Americans have been killed. There will be some who call for urgent withdrawal, but I stress what has already been said by Members on both sides of the House. This is not just about security; it is also about governance, and I hope that that will be discussed at the forthcoming summit in Chicago.

Nick Harvey: The Chicago summit will provide an opportunity for the international community to make long-term commitments both to the future security of Afghanistan after the combat role has ended and to its future prosperity. We will look to countries around the world—countries that have been involved in ISAF, but also many others that have not—to come forward and
	make commitments to Afghanistan’s long-term future. We want all stakeholders in the equation to understand that the international community remain committed to the future of Afghanistan, and that simply ending a combat role at the end of 2014 does not mean in any sense that we are walking away or leaving them to it.

Nick Raynsford: Apart from the horror of the latest incidents, by which we have all been rightly shocked, a number of other issues have been raised during these exchanges about the conduct of our combat mission during the remaining period in which we will deploy a combat role in Afghanistan. They are difficult issues, and I wonder whether it would be sensible for the House to have the opportunity to take part in a full and serious debate on the conduct of our mission. I see that the Leader of the House is present, and I wonder whether the Minister might recommend an early debate on the subject.

Nick Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, raise that issue at business questions. I agree that it is important that we debate these matters, which is why the Government make quarterly statements on progress in Afghanistan and why, in between them, we have monthly written statements. If the House wishes to debate these issues further, we would welcome that, and I have no doubt whatever that there will be an opportunity to do so before too long.

Andrew Murrison: At morale-sapping moments such as these, our troops need to know that the standard operating procedures, and the checks on those whom they fight alongside, are as good as they possibly can be. Will the Minister assure the House that the lessons learned will be shared fully with the UK, and that we will be able to reflect upon the report on this terrible tragedy as soon as possible?

Nick Harvey: My hon. Friend’s constituency has been in the eye of the storm in the last couple of weeks, and it will feel more acutely than anywhere else the pain of the six losses we took in the earlier Warrior incident. He is right that there are broader issues at stake in the incident under discussion. We have a very open relationship with the Americans and the other ISAF allies, and we have the opportunity to reflect upon everything that happens and to learn from that. I assure my hon. Friend that everybody in ISAF is absolutely determined to learn from these incidents, and to ensure, to the extent that we can, that nothing like this happens again.

John Baron: Given the differences that there are between the Taliban and al-Qaeda and the increasing amounts of intelligence suggesting that very few al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan, if we are to remain true to our original mission, does not this incident underline that the Americans, as the lead force, should open non-conditional talks with the Taliban in order to explore possible common ground, particularly given that the Taliban have recently sent signals that they are willing to talk?

Nick Harvey: Many more parties in addition to the Americans and the Taliban will need to be party to any lasting political settlement. There are other elements
	within Afghanistan who might not be at all comfortable with a simple two-way arrangement between the Taliban and the Americans. I believe that on all sides there is a genuine and growing openness to the idea of having a political dialogue, and I believe that that will begin to happen in time. However, I have to say that the way to ensure that al-Qaeda does not come back into Afghanistan and become an element in the future is for us to ensure that the future Afghan forces are able to look after their own security, including their own borders.

Bob Russell: Although this was an appalling atrocity, does the Minister agree that, in recognition of what has been achieved by Her Majesty’s armed forces—those who have served, those who are currently serving and those who will serve—we should make it clear that it is in neither Britain’s nor Afghanistan’s best interests to follow the line argued by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who tabled the urgent question?

Nick Harvey: I could not agree more that the extraordinary investment that has been made in Afghanistan over the past decade—the money, the time, the patience, the bloodshed and everything that everybody who has gone out there and served so bravely and so valiantly has done—would be wasted if we were to cut and run now, when we can clearly see the remainder of the task that stretches out before us and we know what needs to be done to finish the job.

Tony Baldry: This incident raises broader questions about the general responsibility to the civilian population. Will the Minister confirm that infinite care is taken to ensure that everyone in the British Army—from the most senior commander to the most junior private soldier—is fully aware of their duties, responsibilities and obligations under the law of war? This is, perhaps, more relevant now than at any time since we have had a standing army, and there are probably currently more members of the army legal services advising throughout the British Army than there have ever been at any time in military history.

Nick Harvey: My hon. Friend makes some very good points. I would like to reassure him that, as part of the pre-operation training before going to Afghanistan, British troops are indeed given detailed tuition in the legal and moral aspects of warfare. I wish to put his mind at rest on the fact that they understand exactly where their obligations lie. Every time I visit Afghanistan, I am struck by the extraordinarily thoughtful way in which our troops go about their operations. If one has any sort of discussion with them, particularly with officers who plan and execute operations, one finds that there is nothing remotely gung-ho about what they do; it is all extremely thoughtful and it is always conducted with a keen appreciation of the legal and moral framework in which they operate.

James Morris: Despite the terrible events of the weekend, does the Minister agree that it is more imperative than ever that we stick the course in Afghanistan to produce the stable country that we all need and want?

Nick Harvey: I entirely agree. We will still face many challenges in the remaining period of combat operations in Afghanistan, but we have identified a clear strategy and it is essential that we stick to it and create the space within which a political dialogue of the sort we have been discussing can take place.

Jason McCartney: Three of the six British servicemen who died last week were constituents of mine. Over the weekend, I met the parents of Corporal Jake Hartley and the grandparents of Private Anthony Frampton—Private Danny Wilford was the third of my constituents. Many other constituents have legitimately been asking me this weekend why we do not just withdraw now, so that there are no more young losses. However, after their deaths and those of their colleagues from the Yorkshire Regiment and the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment, and after these horrific killings of innocent civilians, it is important that we do not let their deaths be in vain and that we withdraw in an orderly and calm way, as we had planned with ISAF forces.

Nick Harvey: I commend my hon. Friend’s words, as he is absolutely right in what he says, and I know from the contact we have had with other bereaved families that that is exactly their view, too. They feel that the sacrifice that has been made and the valour that has been shown will be rewarded only if we stick at the task and finish the job that we can see clearly before us. That is what we are determined to do.

Peter Bone: This was a terrible incident, but the whole House will be aware that our young men and women put their lives at risk every day to protect Afghan civilians. There is a group of people in this country who are always worried about those people overseas: their family and friends. Given the heightened danger that our troops must be in at the moment, what reassurance can we give to those people?

Nick Harvey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the personal commitment made by all those whom we ask to go out to serve on our behalf, and of course we must recognise the stress and worry that this puts on their families behind them. We will continue to do everything we can to support them, and I know that everyone in this House is very proud of what they do, no matter what our policy differences might be. It is right that, after we have had casualties of our own, we grieve and acknowledge the sacrifice that has been made, but of course the reason why we have had this question this afternoon is to recognise also that the Afghan civilian population is making a terrible sacrifice. Our thoughts and our prayers remain with those Afghan villages and the families there, who have been on the wrong end of an appalling tragedy, which I know we all profoundly regret.

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the Minister. I call Mr Eric Joyce to make a personal statement.

Personal Statement

Eric Joyce: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon. Members will be aware of the events in the Strangers Bar on 22 February, during which the standard of my conduct fell egregiously below what is required of a Member of this House or, indeed, of anyone, anywhere. I am grateful for this opportunity to apologise without reservation to the House, and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), Councillors Luke Mackenzie and Ben Maney, police officers on the night and, indeed, everyone else affected by my actions that evening; clearly that will not be an exhaustive list. They have all shown considerable grace in their public comment, for which I am very grateful. I do, of course, have other apologies to make, including to my constituents, and I will take other opportunities outside this place to do so at greater length.
	Sir, I would like to express my thanks to Members on both sides of the House, and indeed the other place, who have contacted me to express concern, however undeserved it is on my part. Clearly, I have a number of personal issues to address and you can be assured that this will take place. In the meantime, Members will know that certain short-term constraints have been quite rightly placed on me by the court. I will, of course, observe them strictly within the parliamentary precincts as well as elsewhere.
	I would also like to inform the House that I have today tendered my resignation as a member of the Labour party to my party leader. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the commitments that he has made.

Backbench Business Committee

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Deputy Leader of the House to move the motion, I should inform the House that I have selected amendments (a), (b) and (c) in the name of Natascha Engel and amendments (g) and (h) to amendments (a) and (b) in the name of Mr John Hemming. I have also selected amendments (d), (e) and (f) in the name of Mr Peter Bone. The amendments will be debated together with the main motion and the questions necessary to dispose of the motion will be put at the end of the debate.

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That—
	(1) this House endorses the principle that parties should elect members of the Backbench Business Committee each Session and thereafter when a vacancy arises in a secret ballot of all Members of that party by whichever transparent and democratic method they choose.
	(2) Standing Order No. 122D (Election of Backbench Business Committee) shall be amended as follows—
	(a) line 7, at end, insert—
	‘(ba) No Member may be a candidate for the chair of the committee if that Member’s party is represented in Her Majesty’s Government.’;
	(b) in line 12, leave out from second ‘of’ to end of line 14 and insert ‘a party represented in Her Majesty’s Government and no fewer than ten shall be members of a party not so represented or of no party’;
	(c) line 28, leave out paragraph (2);
	(d) line 64, leave out sub-paragraph (b); and
	(e) in the Title, after the word ‘of’, insert ‘chair of’.
	(3) Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee) shall be amended as follows—
	(a) line 7, leave out paragraph (3) and insert—
	‘(3) The chair of the committee shall continue as chair for the remainder of the Session in which that person is elected as chair unless the chair is declared vacant by the Speaker under the provisions of Standing Order No. 122C (Resignation or removal of chairs of select committees) as applied by paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 122D (Election of Backbench Business Committee).’;
	(b) in line 12, leave out ‘and members’;
	(c) line 21, at end, insert—
	‘(6A) The Committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the Committee and who are of a party not represented on the Committee or of no party to attend its meetings and, at the discretion of the chair, take part in its proceedings, but—
	(a) no more than one Member may be so invited to attend in respect of the same meeting;
	(b) a Member so invited shall not move any motion or amendment to any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum.’.
	As the House will be aware, the Select Committee on Procedure, which is chaired with such distinction by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), is conducting a review of the Backbench Business Committee. The Government look forward to contributing to that review and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House looks forward to giving oral evidence. I am sure that the whole House will look forward to the conclusions set out in the review and the Government will certainly consider any recommendations very carefully.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for his preamble. In the light of what he has said, why do the Government consider it inappropriate to leave this motion until after the Procedure Committee has reported?

David Heath: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. Having already said what a splendid fellow he is, I am happy to address the issue that he raises. We expect the Procedure Committee’s conclusions to be of great value, as they have been on a number of other topics. I want to emphasise that today’s motion is not intended to pre-empt the review—[ Interruption. ] Well, it simply does not. It makes three changes that need to be made this Session in order to take effect before the next elections for members of the Backbench Business Committee and therefore before the completion of the review. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, those changes arise in part from points made in evidence to the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the 2010 elections and that Committee itself envisaged changes as regards minority parties being made in advance of the review.

James Gray: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for giving way and I apologise as I am chairing a Committee upstairs at 4.30 pm and will therefore be unable to stay and listen to the end of his remarks. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I thought I would raise the notion that the question of whether the Committee should be elected on a party basis is a difficult matter that I shall be considering very carefully during the forthcoming proceedings of the Procedure Committee. In the meantime, given that he is proposing to make that change without such consideration having taken place, I have no option other than to vote against the Government this evening.

David Heath: I am sorry to hear that, obviously, but it is for the House to make that decision in the light of today’s debate. There would be very little point in our determining that we should have made a change to the process of election after the elections had been held for the next Session. It seems appropriate to me that the House should have the opportunity, as it does today, to consider the matter and come to a conclusion. The will of the House on whether it wishes to make the suggested changes will then prevail.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is for the House to make its decision as this concerns House of Commons business. Will he tell us whether Government members and parliamentary private secretaries are being whipped on this business and if so why?

David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will have to ask his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary about the position on whipping. There are motions on the Order Paper for debate later today that very much reflect the Government’s position on the conduct of business. On those matters, it is quite clear that right hon. and hon. Members who are members of the Government will be whipped to support the Government view, and they are of course here as a consequence.

Chris Bryant: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it is perfectly possible that the Government will get this motion through, without any of the amendments that have been tabled, on the back of a payroll vote. Will he undertake that if that does happen and the Procedure Committee then decides that it wants to take the House down a slightly different route, he will table motions to allow that to happen in the next Session?

David Heath: I have already indicated that we will want to see the Procedure Committee’s conclusions. It has been the practice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and myself to bring forward motions to allow the House to consider the Procedure Committee’s recommendations. I do not think we have anything to be ashamed of in that respect as we have been very careful to ensure that the House has opportunities, where possible, to determine these matters. Obviously, we shall have to wait and see what emerges from the Committee in due course.

John Baron: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way but he still has yet to explain why he and the Government are pre-empting the Procedure Committee’s findings, particularly given one of its last-known findings, at paragraph 59 of its latest report, which stated:
	“We have received no adverse comments on the arrangements for the elections to the Backbench Business Committee”.
	Can the Government justify their position?

David Heath: There was limited scope for complaints about elections to the Backbench Business Committee because, certainly on the Government side of the House, there were no elections: the Members who serve on the Committee were elected unopposed. However, the Procedure Committee proposed that we needed to consider the position of minority parties and I assured Members from the minority parties when we first debated this matter that we would look into this and come back with proposals. I think we would be deficient in our response to the House if we were not to have that debate before the opportunity arises to vote again on the Backbench Business Committee.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for using the word “deficient” because his proposals for the minority parties are clearly deficient and unsatisfactory. Our being given observer status on a Backbench Business Committee—a Committee of the House—as though we were second or third-class citizens of the House is totally unacceptable to us, so if this is all about the minority parties and the smaller parties, he can forget it.

David Heath: I am rather minded to forget it. I went to a great deal of trouble to address the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman asked me to consider when we first debated this. He asked for his party and the other minority parties to be allowed to put up candidates for election as the Chair of the Committee. That is what we are proposing today and he says, “Forget it.” Well, we shall see whether he supports the contention when it comes to the vote.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Heath: I think I should make a little more progress as I have yet to explain what the proposal is, but I will come back to right hon. and hon. Members who wish to contribute.
	The motion aligns the method of election to the Backbench Business Committee with that for other Select Committees. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) might feel aggrieved that he does not have representation on all the Select Committees of the House, but he does not because, on the basis of the formula, he does not have enough party members in the House to have that level of representation. The motion provides protection against unwarranted interference by a future Government in the election of the Chair—something that some hon. Members were very concerned about. We propose to give the House an opportunity to determine that issue today. The motion provides also for participation by the minority parties, however ungrateful they may be, in the Committee.
	Nearly a month ago, the Government’s response to the Procedure Committee’s report was published. It stated quite explicitly that
	“the Government believe that it would be appropriate for the House to address the anomaly whereby members of the Backbench Business Committee other than the Chair (unlike those of other select committees) are elected by the House as a whole rather than by Members of the political party to which they belong before the next elections of members. The Government propose to allow time for consideration of proposals to this effect towards the end of the current Session.”

John Redwood: Should not a strong and confident Government accept whatever kind of scrutiny the House thinks is appropriate? Does the hon. Gentleman not get the mood of the House today? Everyone who has spoken so far today and, I think, those who have not spoken believe he should withdraw the motion and await the proper conclusions of the Committee?

David Heath: I prefer to hear the preponderance of voices in a Division, rather than take a snapshot of how the House may feel before it has had a chance to hear the debate. It is for the House to determine which way it wants to go on the proposals—

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Heath: I shall make a little more progress. I have been reasonably generous in giving way to hon. Members, and I will no doubt be sufficiently generous again.
	The Government could not have been clearer about their intentions. There has been some suggestion that the motion has been sprung on the House without notice or at the wrong time. I suggest that that contention is without merit.
	When moving the motion which led to the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee on 15 June 2010, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out that
	“For the first time in over a century, the House will be given control over significant parts of its own agenda.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 779.]
	That shift in control is one which this Government facilitated and to which they remain fully committed. The subjects of debate and the form that motions for
	debate take on the equivalent of 35 days a Session, including at least 27 days on the Floor of the House, are now properly a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. The debates chosen by the Backbench Business Committee have helped to raise the public profile of the House of Commons, and increased public awareness of the crucial role of the House in holding the Executive to account. The subjects chosen might well not have been chosen by the Government, or indeed by the Opposition, and have been challenging for us. That is part and parcel of the switch of power that the Wright Committee envisaged.
	The Government are committed to the continuing role of the Backbench Business Committee, and to providing the time to that Committee in a Session of normal length which is set out in Standing Orders. The motion before us today does not affect in any way the Committee’s powers or its role.
	The first change addresses an anomaly in the method of election of members of the Backbench Business Committee. At present, all members of the Committee are elected by the whole House. This is wholly appropriate for the Chair of the Committee, who represents the whole House, but it may not be appropriate for the other members. It is wrong in principle that, for example, the choice of Opposition Members on a Committee could be decided by the votes of Members on the Government Benches, who will inevitably outnumber them.
	I read a comment in the electronic media earlier today—because of the anomaly, why do we not change the rules for all the other Select Committees to match those for the Backbench Business Committee? The reason is obvious. If we were to do that, the Government of the day would control who the Opposition parties put on Select Committees. The House would rightly be outraged if that were the position, yet that is the position that we currently have with the Backbench Business Committee.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Heath: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chair of the Public Administration Committee.

Bernard Jenkin: No doubt my hon. Friend has seen the evidence submitted by Dr Meg Russell to the Procedure Committee, in which she expressed her view that to go down the route he has chosen
	“would be very much contrary to the spirit of what the Wright Committee intended.”
	Is not the answer that the Backbench Business Committee is a special committee, not like an ordinary Select Committee, and that its Chair should be selected in the same manner as the Speaker and represent the whole House, as indeed should its members? That is what Wright intended. Why is he departing from Wright?

David Heath: As I said when responding to the debate on the original motion to set up the Backbench Business Committee, Wright is not holy writ and should not be treated as such, not least because there are internal contradictions in the Wright report, just as there are sometimes in holy writ. Therefore, the House has to take
	a view on what is in the best interests of its procedures. That will be for the House to decide. I simply contend that it is a strange situation where the biggest party represented in the House can override the interests and decisions of other parties in deciding who its representatives on the Committee will be. I would have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex had confidence in the ability of his own party’s procedures —I am afraid I have no specialist knowledge of them—to make a proper determination of who should serve on the Committee on its behalf.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex that different considerations apply to the Chair of the Committee, as he set out, which is why we propose that the Chair should continue to be elected by the whole House, with one proviso: we think that the Government should not provide the Chair, for perfectly obvious reasons. The situation is exactly analogous to that of two other Committees—the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. There is a strong argument in favour of the Committee’s decisions not being seen as the result of some sort of internal collusion between the Government and the legislature, and I think that the clearest way of indicating that they are not is to ensure that the Chair comes from a party that is not represented in Government.

Edward Leigh: So, the Deputy Leader of the House can of course give us an assurance that the Government are not seeking to change the rules now because existing members of the Committee have proved too independent.

David Heath: I can give that clear assurance, because I have absolute confidence that the members elected by the party groups will be every bit as independent as those elected by Committee of the whole House, and perhaps even identical in person. What I am trying to do is prevent the potential abuse of that process, which could clearly happen under the present rules. I hope that each of the parties, through their internal mechanisms, will have sufficiently robust structures in place to ensure that the Whips, if they come running to Back-Bench Members to have a particular Member elected to the Committee, will be robustly told where to go. But we shall see, because that is internal to the various parties and their internal democratic processes.

Julian Lewis: I am struggling a little to follow the argument the Deputy Leader of the House is making. If it is the case that the present Chair and members of the Committee have been conducting themselves excellently, why change now in a hurry when we are still waiting for a report? If the Government are so concerned about this—perhaps there is a point I have overlooked—why did he not bring in the arrangement he is proposing at the beginning of the process? Why are we bringing it in when the process is well underway, given that the people who have been running the Backbench Business Committee appear to be doing such a splendid job?

David Heath: I have already said why. We are doing that now because we are about to have elections, and we do not change the rules of elections after elections. It is normal practice, and normally more constructive, to change the rules before elections, rather than afterwards.
	The hon. Gentleman asks why we did not start from a different basis. I accept, and the House is fully aware, that we started with the draft proposals from the Wright Committee, and it was obvious then that what applied to the Backbench Business Committee was different from what applied to any other Select Committee. The precautionary principle in elections to other Select Committees exists for a reason: to stop interference—in a party political way, between the parties—as to who on Select Committees should represent Members. I think that is quite an important principle, but the House must decide whether it considers it to be an important principle. If the House considers it to be nugatory, the House will vote accordingly.

David Nuttall: I realise that my hon. Friend is keen to bring the rules of the Backbench Business Committee into line with those of other Select Committees, so why does he not propose to bring it into line with Standing Order No. 151(11) so that its members are elected for the whole Parliament, rather than for a Session at a time?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman raises a separate issue, one that we explored at length when we set up the Committee. The answer is that the Committee is a Committee of the House which deals with the topical issues before it, and it is right that Back Benchers have a regular opportunity to express their view on its performance; I make no apologies for that. It is sensible that the House has such control, because if we were to elect the Committee’s members for an entire Parliament, the House would lose that opportunity to reflect on, or to see, whether the Committee was conducting itself as the House had hoped.
	That is entirely different in kind from the responsibilities, within a Select Committee, of Select Committee members, who need such continuity in order to do their job effectively of holding to account the Department in question. To my mind there is a clear separation, but the hon. Gentleman may take a different view. I am simply confident that the House is capable of making decisions about the way in which it conducts its affairs, and of doing so without the benefit of distortions of any kind in the system. That is what is proposed today.

John Baron: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath: I am going to have make some progress very soon, because I have gone very little distance in explaining the tenor of my comments, but I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman, as I am a very generous man.

John Baron: My hon. Friend is being very kind, but in all these exchanges he has singularly failed to answer one simple question: why are the Government pre-empting the findings of the Procedure Committee?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman says that I have singularly failed to answer the question, but I have answered it several times; he simply does not like the answer I have given. There is a subtle distinction between not answering and others not accepting the answer. As I have said, the answer is that this is the opportunity we have before the elections.
	The Procedure Committee will not report before the elections are due, and I do not want to put any further pressure on it to complete its report in a hurry, because these are very important matters on which we want the full benefit of its advice. It is no good crying after the event if it proves that we have made an error in our election of Members to the Backbench Business Committee. That is why the House has been given the opportunity today to consider whether it wants to make the changes that I have suggested.
	The motion achieves that—

John Hemming: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath: Yes, but this will be the last intervention for some time.

John Hemming: On that point, the problem so far in getting Procedure Committee debates on to the Floor of the House has been the Government allocating time for the Backbench Business Committee so that the Committee can allocate time to debate a Procedure Committee report. If the Government were to promise to allocate time immediately to debate a Procedure Committee report, there would be no difficulty in getting that through in time for the elections.

David Heath: There is one small difficulty with that, which is that the Backbench Business Committee is precluded from putting forward time for amendments to its own constitution. That is why it has to be a matter for the Government and why we are providing time today, and would provide time in future, to consider the results of the Procedure Committee report.
	The motion achieves what I have been describing by a simple endorsement of the principle that parties should elect members of the Backbench Business Committee each Session, and thereafter when a vacancy arises, in a secret ballot of all Members from that party by whichever transparent and democratic method they choose, following the same approach as that agreed for other Select Committees on 4 March 2010. In consequence, we are, if the House agrees, removing the provisions in Standing Orders for elections of members of the Committee other than the Chair. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and others would remove the provisions whose purpose I have described and retain the current arrangements. Given what I have said, it will be no surprise that I will not support those amendments, but it is open to the House to do so if it wishes.
	The second element of the motion relates to the Chair of the Committee, and I have already indicated why I believe that it introduces a beneficial change. The Government believe that it would not be appropriate for a Member from the governing party, or parties, to be nominated for the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, because to do so might give rise to the Government’s appearing to seek to influence a key position in the House in an improper way. Having an Opposition Member chairing the Backbench Business Committee headlines the Committee’s independence not only from the business managers—of whom I am one, on behalf of the Government—but the influence of the Government party generally. My right hon. Friend
	the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) stood for the post of Chair in 2010, when the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) was elected, and his wisdom and experience have subsequently been deployed in his service as Chair of the Administration Committee. However, conventions evolve over time, and we think the time is now right to recognise that the Chair should be held by an Opposition Member.
	At the same time, we are taking the opportunity to remedy an anomaly in the Standing Order that was identified by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and referred to by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire during the debate on 15 June 2010—namely, that at present no Member can be nominated for the Chair unless he or she belongs to a party with at least 11 Members of this House. I acknowledged on that occasion that my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman had identified a possible defect in the Standing Order that needed to be considered, and I am pleased to move this motion to remedy it—[ Interruption ]—despite the protestations of the hon. Gentleman who, it seems, is never satisfied. We propose to replace it with a provision that requires cross-party support of comparable strength but allows Members from minority parties to stand for Chair of the Committee.
	Finally, the motion makes provision for hon. Members from parties not represented on the Backbench Business Committee to participate in its work. The motion allows the Committee to invite an hon. Member who does not belong to a party represented on it to participate in its proceedings, including deliberative sessions, but not to vote. It would be for the Committee to decide whether to invite one hon. Member for a Session or a shorter period or to invite different hon. Members to different meetings. [ Interruption. ] The Government believe that this effectively addresses minority party concerns—although clearly, according to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, it does not—in a manner consistent with the principle that the composition of the Committee should reflect the party composition of the House. The hon. Gentleman protests from a sedentary position that it does not reflect it because he wants full membership of the Committee, but that is not the way in which this House has determined its membership of Select Committees, whereby such membership reflects the composition of the House as a whole. It seems to me that that principle of proportionality is something that the House would wish to maintain, because otherwise it becomes open to the House to distort the composition of the House as represented in the membership of its Select Committees, and I am not sure that the Backbench Business Committee should be separate from that consideration.
	We made it clear in our response to the Procedure Committee, which was published last month, that we do not agree with the proposal for full membership for a minority party Member. Our proposal allows for the participation of hon. Members from different parties, as and when the Backbench Business Committee considers it appropriate, whereas the amendments would provide for only a single hon. Member to participate. That is why we oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire and others.
	The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) would apply the principle of whole-House elections to the election of a minority party Member. That is instructive about the conduct of this whole debate. Were the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire and the amendments to them tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley successful, the larger parties in the House would determine not only which Member from the minority parties would appear on the Committee, but which party would be represented. That would put the larger parties in the inappropriate position of deciding whether it should be a Member from the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru who was selected for the position. That amply demonstrates what is wrong with the current system of elections.
	In conclusion, the motion will change the elections for the membership of the Backbench Business Committee and how Members participate in its work in a way that enables the Committee to continue to work effectively. It will make those changes at the right time—in fact, the only possible time—before the membership is settled in the next Session. The motion will facilitate the Committee’s effective operation in the future and I commend it to the House.

Angela Smith: It is appropriate that I start my comments, which I promise will be brief, by drawing attention to the success of the Backbench Business Committee so far. That needs to be put on the record. A wide range of topics has been introduced to the House via this mechanism, some of them as a result of the e-petitions process, with which we are now all familiar. Of course, one particular subject was not allowed to be debated in the Chamber and the reasons for that are well known.
	There have been 39 days of Back-Bench debate in the Chamber and 16 in Westminster Hall. The impact has been considerable and has outweighed the number of days that have been allocated. There have been challenging debates on a range of issues and there have been six votes, including two on Afghanistan, one on contaminated blood, one on the regulation of financial advisers and one on accountability to the House. All those are important topics that would not have been debated or voted on if we had not had the Backbench Business Committee. The House would therefore not have been able to express its view.
	One of the two most memorable debates was last year’s debate on wild animals in circuses. The decision of the House, without a vote, was that wild animals should be banned in circuses. The view of the Opposition is that the wild animals in circuses may die of old age before they are banned if the Government have their way.
	Perhaps the biggest and most profound debate was on the Hillsborough disaster, which was held in the House last autumn. I was proud to take part in that debate, and in my view, it showed the House at its finest. It was a moving debate that consolidated the growing view that the Hillsborough disaster requires open and transparent examination, especially in relation to the records that are given over to the inquiry, and that no stone should be left unturned in revealing the truth
	of what happened on that day. The House played an important part in confirming the view of the establishment, if one wants to call it that, on that point.
	The Backbench Business Committee is clearly a useful new mechanism for strengthening the effective scrutiny of Government by the Commons. We support the motion because it follows the example set by the new arrangements for Select Committee membership, which were hard fought for. Those arrangements determine that the membership of Select Committees should be decided by elections of all Members of the House. The new Select Committee procedure, which will apply to the Backbench Business Committee if the motion is passed, gives Back Benchers on both sides of the House the opportunity to determine their own representation on Committees. Equally importantly, it allows them to do so without interference by any other party.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Lady says that the motion will give parties on both sides of the House the ability to select their Committee members without interference by anybody else. In fact, it will give three parties in the House the ability to select their members. It ignores the representatives of the other six parties. The Social Democratic and Labour party, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party, the Alliance party, the Green party and the Democratic Unionist party will have no ability to select members. Does she not think that she should have thought the matter through a little more carefully, or is this just about the Labour party Whips controlling their Members, in the same way as it is about the Tory Back Benchers being controlled by their Whips?

Angela Smith: Perish the thought. I would argue, actually, that the motion gives minority party Members more right to representation on the Backbench Business Committee.

David Nuttall: Does the hon. Lady agree that there would be a problem if the motion were accepted, in that two elections would take place, one among Government Members and one among Opposition Members? The rules provide that two female Members have to be elected to the Committee. How would that work in practice? How would it be determined who the two female Members should be?

Angela Smith: It is a minimum of two women, and the Opposition have plenty of very good women who would put their names forward. In my view, women on the Labour Benches are equally likely to be represented on the Committee as our male colleagues, if not more so.

Peter Bone: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Smith: Very briefly, but then I must make progress, because I want to give Back-Bench Members time to make their contributions.

Peter Bone: As I understand it, the Government’s proposal will do away with the gender balance on the Committee. Does the hon. Lady support that?

Angela Smith: The Opposition will have a quota to provide gender balance on the Committee, because we are committed to equality when it comes to gender representation in the House. We are proud of the fact that we follow that principle.
	The motion will also abolish the prohibition on members of minority parties standing for the position of Chair of the Committee, which is an important improvement. That is provided, of course, that they are not members of any governing coalition, which is an equally important improvement.
	A Procedure Committee inquiry on the Backbench Business Committee is ongoing. We seek assurances that there will be an opportunity at the appropriate time for the House to take a view on any recommendations arising from that report, with adequate time provided. I believe that the Government have already conceded that point to some extent, but I should like to hear more about it when the Minister concludes the debate.
	We cannot support the amendments, because they are incompatible with the Select Committee membership arrangements that are already in place.
	I shall conclude now, because I wish to give Back-Bench Members adequate time to contribute.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. It is clear that several Members wish to speak, and we have, I think, only 53 minutes for them to do so. There is no formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches at this stage, but a certain self-denying ordinance would be widely appreciated.

Peter Bone: I rise to speak against the motion, largely in sadness and regret, because I will have to criticise those on the Government Front Bench, particularly the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House. I could do that in 10 seconds, because as we have already heard, Government and Opposition Front Benchers support the motion on the Backbench Business Committee, so we could almost say, “When the two Front Benches agree, it’s a clearly a stitch-up and can't be right for the House”—and sit down.
	This attempt to alter Standing Orders on the Backbench Business Committee to suit the Executive is absolutely outrageous. It is an attempt by the Executive to ignore Parliament and to impose their will on the House. What is particularly shocking is that they are trying to interfere with business that is exclusively Back-Bench business. Such business has no relevance whatever to the Government.
	The Government’s actions fly in the face of the House of Commons Reform Committee report, “Rebuilding the House”, HC1117, which proposed what are known throughout the House as the Wright reforms. Those reforms were designed to restore trust in Parliament and to reduce the power of the Executive. They were the very reforms that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House supported so vigorously when they were in opposition. I am sad to say that it has taken less than two years for the Government to do a U-turn and go back to the bad old days of the Executive trying to tell Parliament what to do. There have been several signs over the past few months that the Government
	are adopting the policy of always knowing right and of assuming that Parliament is there only to rubber-stamp their decisions. This motion is the clearest and most obvious breach of their commitment to put Parliament first.
	One of the most shocking and shameful aspects of the debate is its timing. The Leader of the House put the motion on the Order Paper without any consultation with the Backbench Business Committee. Even more significantly, he did so only hours after the Committee met, so that it could not formally consider the issue. He has also tabled the debate and vote prior to tomorrow’s Committee meeting. He has deliberately slighted the Committee, which meets weekly, by putting the motion on the Order Paper hours after last Tuesday’s meeting and before tomorrow’s meeting.
	What is even more reprehensible is that the Committee is reviewing its operation so that it can report to the House and provide evidence to the Procedure Committee’s inquiry. The Government’s timing is the most disgraceful discourtesy to the Backbench Business Committee. The Leader of the House is saying to the Committee: “I want to sneak this through before your Committee can formally protest.” That is devious, undemocratic and a disgrace to the Government.
	I shall now turn to the crux of the matter—this is why the motion should be defeated. The Procedure Committee, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who is in his place, announced on 21 February 2012 that it was launching a review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee in accordance with a previous motion agreed by the House of Commons. The review was
	“in particular to inquire into…issues relating to the membership of the Committee…the amount of time available to the Committee and the way in which the Government allocates that time…the powers of the Committee, and the process by which the Committee determines the matters to be debated in backbench time.”
	The closing date for submissions was Thursday 8 March. Let us dwell on that for a moment. Thursday 8 March was two days after the Government tabled their motion and decided what the House would do. At best, that was a shoddy attempt by the Government to ignore a Select Committee; at worst, it was an attempt by the Government to interfere with a Select Committee, which could give rise to a number of issues for the Minister, possibly including a breach of the ministerial code and referral to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Government might think that they can ignore the will of Parliament, but this is a different Parliament to previous ones. This Parliament is willing to stand up to an all-powerful Executive.
	As the House is aware, Members were requested to send representations to the Procedure Committee by last Thursday. The first three things they were asked to consider were:
	“The composition of the Committee and the process for electing its members; whether the Chair of the Committee should be reserved for an opposition Member; whether a place on the Committee should be reserved for the minority parties.”
	The top three issues, then, that we were asked to consider and report on to the Procedure Committee by last Thursday are exactly the three issues that the Government are trying to shoot through Parliament today.
	The Executive have decided, without waiting for the Procedure Committee report, that Committee members will be elected by party groups and that the Chair of the Committee will be an Opposition Member, and they have completely fudged the issue of the minority parties. The Government have predetermined the Procedure Committee’s inquiry before it has had time to collate the written evidence, take oral evidence and consider its report.

John Baron: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s explanation—that they had to push this through prior to an election—runs rather shallow given that, unlike for other Committees of the House, elections are every Session, so these proposals could quite easily have been postponed for a year until the next elections?

Peter Bone: Of course that is the case. These elections will determine the Backbench Business Committee not for the term of the Parliament but for a year. If the Procedure Committee happened to report after the next elections and there was a change to procedure, the elections afterwards could be run on the new system. There was absolutely no need to prejudge the Select Committee report, apart from the fact that it might have resolved matters differently from what the Government wanted.

Greg Knight: May I place it on the record that the Procedure Committee will in no way feel inhibited by what is determined today? Does my hon. Friend agree that what the House decides today it can later decide to undo or amend?

Peter Bone: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. Nobody who knows him will think that this sort of ploy could possibly affect what his Committee does.
	I turn to one of the most appalling aspects of today—the whipping on the Conservative Benches. There is no question but that this is House business, and there is no question but that it is Back-Bench business. By convention, such votes should not carry a Whip; they should be free votes. There is no way that the Executive should try to instruct the House how to organise Back-Bench business affairs, but Conservative Members were told last week that we would be on a three-line Whip to vote for this outrageous motion. After protests, the Whips Office reduced it to a one-line Whip. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughs, and of course he knows why the Whips Office did that: to keep Back Benchers away from the House. I have received a very nice text from a Member saying, “I’m out working in my constituency. Aren’t the xxx Whips very devious?” That is very true.
	After our protests, then, the Whips Office reduced the vote to a one-line Whip, but that is not a genuine free vote, because Members here will still be instructed how to vote. This is wrong, should not be happening and flies in the face of the coalition Government’s pledge to restore trust in Parliament. Even worse, I understand that Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries are on a three-line Whip to vote through this despicable motion. The very people who should have no interest in Back-Bench business are the ones who are being told to vote for the changes. I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Leader of the
	House if that is not the case.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I see he does not want to intervene. This really is going back to the bad old days.

William Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that some years ago, in an extremely important book called “The Commons In Transition”, a former Clerk of the House said that the root of all the trouble with Standing Orders and whipping was collusion between the two Front Benches in the 1880s in order to take control of Standing Orders away from the Speaker? In those days it was the Speaker who determined these questions, which preserved the integrity of the House.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I think you would admonish me if I went down that route, Mr Speaker, as it is a little wide of today’s debate, although I must say that it has much merit.

Mr Speaker: I might not.

Peter Bone: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I turn to the amendments in my name and five of the seven other members of the Backbench Business Committee, including the Chairman. The purpose of amendments (d), (e) and (f) is to leave out the Government’s proposed changes to the election of Backbench Business Committee members. The Government are proposing that future members of the Committee will be elected by party group. There are two distinct disadvantages to that proposal. The first—I suggest that this is the reason for it—is that it will give the Government, as well as the shadow Government, greater influence in deciding who is elected to the Backbench Business Committee. Through their Whips Offices, they will try to engineer more pliable Members to be elected to the Committee. I believe that this will make the Committee much more divided on party lines. In all the time that the current Committee has met, there has been only one vote, and that did not divide it along party lines. The Government’s proposal will reduce the likelihood that independent parliamentarians will be elected to the Committee.
	Secondly, the authority that members of the Committee hold is greatly enhanced by their being chosen by the whole House. Their mandate comes from Back Benchers of all political persuasions, not by a narrow party group. The Wright Committee was clear on that issue, saying in paragraph 180 of its report on page 54:
	“We therefore recommend that a Backbench Business Committee be created. It should be comprised of between seven and nine members elected by secret ballot of the House as a whole”.
	So there we have it: the Wright report recommends that individual members of the Committee should be elected by the whole House, not by party groups. That is what the House agreed when setting up the Backbench Business Committee—the House agreed with the Wright Committee. Now the Government want to change Standing Orders while a Select Committee is looking into the matter, and against the wishes of the Wright Committee and an earlier decision of the House.
	In conclusion, I therefore wish to press my amendments, and if they are not accepted by the Government, I will seek your leave to divide the House, Mr Speaker. I will also be supporting the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). I would urge Members both to support the amendments and to vote against the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Several Members are seeking to catch my eye, so I give notice to the House that after the next speaker whom I intend to call—namely the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee—I will impose a time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench contributions, because I am keen to facilitate as many Back Benchers as possible. However, that will not apply to the next speech.

Natascha Engel: I will keep my comments brief, in order that Back Benchers are given a bit more time.
	I am deeply disappointed that the Government have tabled this motion without consulting either the Procedure Committee or the Backbench Business Committee. It goes absolutely against the spirit of the sort of relationship that has grown up between the Backbench Business Committee and the Government. The fact that motions affecting the Backbench Business Committee’s operation have been tabled while the Procedure Committee is still looking at that matter in detail and asking for their ideas people far and wide, inside the House and beyond, means that today’s debate cannot be as informed as it should be. Furthermore, to allocate one and a half hours for such a debate is laughable. Members are being asked to make decisions on matters that require much more information.
	The Backbench Business Committee will produce its report either this week or next week. The Procedure Committee could work much more quickly on its review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee if it needed to, and could report very quickly on it. If the Government were willing to withdraw the motion, I am certain that we would benefit from a debate informed by the end-of-term report from the Backbench Business Committee and by the Procedure Committee’s report, well before the end of the Session and timed to coincide with the elections to the Backbench Business Committee. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are willing to consider withdrawing the motion and having a debate on these matters on another day? I am sure that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and I would work very quickly to produce our Committees’ reports in order to facilitate such a debate.
	The amendments tabled in my name deal with the minority parties. This matter has been a running sore to the Backbench Business Committee. We are, by accident, a Committee of Members from England. We have three members from the east midlands region, and we are an entirely English Committee. We could be far more representative not only of Back Benchers but of the country as a whole if the minority parties were more actively involved.

Mark Williams: As a Member from Wales, I endorse what the hon. Lady has just said. She will be aware that the leading characters from Wales came to her to put their case for a St David’s day debate, and I am happy to report that the English members of the Committee yielded to that request, but it took two years to achieve that. The point that she makes about geographic spread is an important one.

Natascha Engel: Indeed. Such representation would give added flavour to the Backbench Business Committee.

Pete Wishart: It is more than that; the Committee must be for Back Benchers of the whole House, not just those of the Government parties and the Labour Opposition. There are five other political parties in the House; surely they should be represented if it is to be a Back-Bench Committee of the whole House.

Natascha Engel: That goes to the heart of the amendments. The minority parties are Back Benchers. They can never really be Front Benchers. It is very unlikely that we will ever see a member of one of the minority parties at the Dispatch Box.
	Using the principle of proportionality is also wrong. The Committee has four members from the Conservative party, one from the Liberal Democrats and two from the Labour party, plus the Chair, who has a casting vote. An additional member from one of the minority parties would not automatically lose the Government their majority—certainly not during a coalition Government, and I see no reason why we should not consider expanding the number of members of the Committee if there were not a coalition.
	The Backbench Business Committee is different from other Select Committees, in that it represents all Back Benchers of the House. At the moment, however, we do that very poorly by not having representation from the minority parties. The Procedure Committee’s report of October 2011 recommended that these changes be made, and that an additional place on the Backbench Business Committee be created in order that the minority parties be given representation. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has just made the point that, after the Procedure Committee had reported, we could table motions to amend what had been decided today. That is sort of true, but only the Government are able to table motions that affect the Backbench Business Committee. Quite rightly, we as a Backbench Business Committee cannot table motions that affect our own operation. What the right hon. Gentleman says is rather difficult unless it is within the Government’s agreement that the motions are tabled. That worries me. That brings me back to why the Government cannot simply wait until the Procedure Committee has produced its report and the Backbench Business Committee has told the House about its experiences in the one and a half years of its existence.
	Let me briefly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that deals with the issue of the whole House participating in the elections. This goes back to the point that the Backbench Business Committee is somewhat different from other Select Committees, in that it represents all Back Benchers. Therefore, the whole House should have a say in who it wants on the Backbench Business Committee.

Graham Brady: The hon. Lady and I both served on the Wright Committee, and I am sure that she remembers, as I do, that it was very much that Committee’s deliberate intention to achieve a cultural change in the House of Commons. Part of that was precisely the issue of the Backbench Business Committee being elected by and representing the whole House, not individual parties.

Natascha Engel: That is absolutely right. We should not throw away that important principle today. I am worried by the fact that the Government have tabled these motions. There has been inadequate time to look at them and inadequate time to explore all the different consequences arising from them. We are dealing with something that is not broken, so I do not understand why the Government want to fix it.

Edward Leigh: Apparently, some people in the Government think that under the current arrangements the Labour party can gang up to ensure that so-called troublemakers are on this Committee. Is that not to politicise the whole issue? The fact is that members of the Committee are independent. They are not troublemakers; they are independent-minded people. We should keep party politics out of this.

Natascha Engel: That goes back to my point that the Backbench Business Committee is not broken. We do not vote on party lines and the discussions we have are not on party lines. Its members are independent-minded. They are members of different political parties, but the wider issue is about how we best represent Back Benchers as a whole. We currently have a spread on the Committee, with every type of Back Bencher in today’s Parliament represented.
	I urge Members to vote for the amendment that includes the minority parties as full voting members. We do not want them to be there only as a result of some kind of patronage of the Chair which allows them to attend and listen to the Committee’s words of wisdom. We want them to have full membership and full voting rights. I also urge support for the amendment tabled to allow the entire House to vote on who should represent Back Benchers on the Backbench Business Committee.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A four-minute limit applies, but I remind Members that they are not obliged to speak right up to that limit.

John Baron: I find the proposals in the Government’s motion to be very unfortunate, as they are bringing party politics into this place when dealing with Back-Bench business matters. That is, as I say, most unfortunate—and, more importantly, it will be viewed as unfortunate by people outside this place, too.
	I suggest that a key aspect of the reassertion of Parliament was the formation of the Backbench Business Committee, which has proved—neither the Government nor Opposition Front-Bench Members have been able to suggest otherwise—to be an excellent method of holding the Executive to account, ensuring that matters of importance are debated here, at times against the wishes of the Government. I have heard no evidence from anybody that the Backbench Business Committee is not working well.
	I have my own reasons to be grateful to the Backbench Business Committee. The full-day debate that I led on Iran on 20 February was the first time that the subject had been debated for many years. Whatever the views across the House, it was a good day for parliamentarians.
	It was a packed debate; we ran out of time; we heard many excellent contributions, including from former Foreign and Defence Secretaries. It was deemed by everyone who participated in the debate to be well worth while. At the time, the Government opposed it; they opposed even the wording of the motion, as we saw.
	It is therefore very regrettable that the Government have pre-empted the findings of the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the operation of the Backbench Business Committee by producing their own recommendations today. The response from those on the Front Bench that they had to do it now, because if they did not it would be too late for the election, is complete and utter nonsense. The elections come round every Session: they come round every year. There is no real reason why the Government’s suggestions could not have waited until the Procedure Committee had presented its recommendations, and perhaps they could then have influenced the elections next year.
	I am afraid that, whatever my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may say from the Dispatch Box, the justification does not stack up. There can be no doubt that implementation of the Government’s proposals would result in a weakening of the Committee. It would take power away from the Back Benches and Parliament and hand it back to the Executive, and that cannot be right. This is all about control.
	Finally, let me say something about the question of who selects the Chairman and Committee members. Surely all those who are selected as members of the Committee would have far more authority if they were elected by the whole House, rather than by party groups. That would enable the Committee to perform its role even better, with greater justification and, I would suggest, with greater credibility and integrity as well.

Pete Wishart: You will recall, Mr Speaker, the sense of disappointment, outrage and anger two years ago, when we first learned of the membership of the Backbench Business Committee. We had been excluded, as though we did not exist. We were not entitled to a place on the Committee. That would not have been so important had it been just another Select Committee of the House—we expect to be excluded from those, because that is what the arithmetic does—but for us to be excluded from the Backbench Business Committee, a Committee of Members acting for other Members, was absolutely and utterly ridiculous.
	When we complained, we were reassured. I was told, “Don’t worry, Pete, it will be fine. As soon as we have the first opportunity to review this, we will put it right and ensure that it is fixed. We will have a place for you on the Committee.” And what did we get? Observer status. This is not the United Nations; this is the House of Commons, one of the Houses of Parliament. We do not do observer status in this place. What a ridiculous and utterly fatuous notion! We demand a place on this Committee.

William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I am sorry; I do not have enough time.
	I could stand for the position of Chair of the Committee, but I have as much chance of becoming its Chair as the Deputy Leader of the House has of becoming the SNP
	Member for Somerton and Frome. There is no chance whatsoever of a member of one of the minority parties being allowed—

David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I will give way briefly to the Deputy Leader of the House.

David Heath: If it is of such little consequence that the hon. Gentleman could stand for the position of Chair, why on earth did he make such a song and dance about it two years ago?

Pete Wishart: What we were making such a song and dance about was membership of the Committee. I should be delighted to be able to stand for the position of Chair of the Committee as a member of the Committee, but for me to be able to stand for that position without having a place on the Committee is utterly and absolutely ridiculous.
	We in the minority parties will have to have a think about this. We cannot have a Backbench Business Committee of some of the House; it must be a Backbench Business Committee of the whole House. We decided that we would involve ourselves with the Committee over the last two years, despite our great disappointment about what happened. We were reassured by the Chair, who has been fantastic with the minority parties, and who has been able to work with us to ensure that we could at least secure some of our debates. However, we will now have to take a good long look at our relationship with the Committee. I suggest to other members of the smaller parties that we should be saying, “If you, the House, do not want us, why on earth should we have anything to do with you?” If this is to be a Back-Bench Committee consisting exclusively of members of the Government parties and the Labour Opposition, why should we have anything to do with it at all?
	We must ensure that the Backbench Business Committee is a Committee of the whole House. The present arrangements are nonsense, the idea of observer status is absurd, and I appeal to the House to back the amendments and ensure that we have equality in the House. There are five other political parties here. There is more than just a Labour Opposition; there are other members, there are other parties, and we must ensure that we are properly represented in the House. The Wright Committee has been a disaster for the smaller parties. We have effectively been turfed out of Select Committees, and now the same is happening with other Committees in the House.
	I urge Members to back the amendments. I urge them to ensure that there is justice for the smaller parties, and to ensure that we have a Backbench Business Committee that represents the whole House.

John Hemming: I am a glutton for punishment, because as well as being a member of the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I serve on the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee, so I follow the deliberations on these matters through the entire process.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that the BBC should be a Committee of, as it were, the whole House. The Member who communicates with the minority parties should be a full Committee member and be elected by the whole House. I drafted a couple of technical amendments that would have ensured that the election for Committee members of the minority parties would have been the same as the election for those of the other parties, so that all are elected by the whole House. One reason for suggesting that is that not all political issues are party political.
	Essentially, the Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams are trying to shift the balance of power back towards the Executive. Let us consider the elections at the start of this Session. I was uncontested as the Liberal Democrat representative, and the four Conservatives were also uncontested. There were three candidates to be the two Labour representatives, but there have not been any by-elections since. We could therefore argue that the proposal under discussion may not make any difference. In practice, however, it is still moving away from the recommendations of the Wright report, which state that Parliament should operate as a Parliament, and not do everything divided along party lines. We need representatives from the parties to make sure that systems of communication are in place and that Members know that there is somebody they can talk to.

William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the following fact: every other region of the United Kingdom can be represented—there can be a member from Wales, a member from England, a member from Scotland—but none of the three major parties have representatives from Northern Ireland? Who will speak with authority for the people of Northern Ireland?

John Hemming: That is why I think it is important to have somebody from the minority parties elected by the whole House as a full member of the Committee. There has been one vote on one issue, and the rest of the decisions have, in effect, been made by consensus. In a House business committee, there would, obviously, have to be a Government majority. In this case, however, there is clearly no need to add an extra Member of the Government parties when adding a full Member communicating with the minority parties.
	My point is that the idea of having a BBC representing the Back Benchers of the whole House and elected by the whole House has worked very well and should not be changed.

Chris Bryant: I think the Leader of the House has, in general, been an excellent Leader of the House; since he took up his post after the general election, he has, broadly speaking, done a good job, as has the Deputy Leader of the House. I therefore feel sorry that today is not a day when we are able to praise the Leader of the House, as I think the proposals he has come up with are ill-considered and ill-timed. I think that he has let himself down, to be honest.
	I say that because we are now coming to the end of a two-year Session. This will, I believe, be the longest parliamentary Session since 1643. That has given additional
	power to the Government, as they have been able to keep on having a go at getting legislation through in the other place. That is why we are still having a row about the health service Bill. If we had not had a two-year Session, many of its elements would have been ditched long ago—and likewise in respect of many other pieces of proposed legislation.
	The Backbench Business Committee has been a genuine success, however. As has been said, the timing of this proposal is wrong because the Procedure Committee has not yet completed its business. The proposal is therefore a bit of an affront to it. Also, the Government had plenty of time to organise for today. They could have set about this process months ago, because we always knew that another set of elections was going to be held at the end of the second year. We could have started this process six months ago rather than recently.
	I also point out to the Leader of the House that the coalition agreement says that there will be a House business committee by the third year, which starts in a few weeks’ time. We therefore should, in fact, be debating the House business committee tonight, not the Government trying to seize a bit of power in relation to the BBC.
	The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) go to the heart of what it is to be a Member of Parliament. Every single one of us can be partisan. I can be extremely partisan on occasion. [Interruption.] Indeed, other hon. Members can be partisan, too. That is not wrong, as we were all elected on party tickets. My constituents in the Rhondda do not vote for me because I am a lovely, decent chap. [Interruption.] I think I have carried the House on that. They vote for me because they want a Labour Government and a Labour person to be elected.
	Of course, that partisan element of how we do our business and the way we tussle in the Chamber is part of making sure that the Government do a better job. I have no problem with being partisan, but we also have to rise above being partisan on occasion. We have sometimes let ourselves down on that and it is where the Leader of the House is doing so on this matter. It was a sadness that Robin Cook never managed to get some of these things through previous whipping organisations when we were in government, but it was a delight when people who were standing for election by the whole House—the Chairs—were lobbying all Members of the House; they actually wanted a mandate and wanted to understand what all the Members of the House thought. Surely that is why it is better that the members of the Backbench Business Committee should be elected by the whole House, not just by their individual parties.
	I launched my “save the backbench three” campaign last Friday because of a concern. The Committee has done a good job, having given us the best debates this year, whereas the Government have given us some pretty poor debates during the past year and for the past few months they have given us hardly anything to do at all. I fear that next year’s business will be a waste of time, unless we keep the “backbench three”.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Five Members are seeking to contribute and I would like to accommodate them all. I do not know that I shall succeed, but brevity is of the essence.

Bernard Jenkin: It is a good thing that Chief Whips are not required to speak in these debates. We have heard some full tributes to the work of the Backbench Business Committee from the Deputy Leader of the House and his shadow, and I would be very surprised if the Government Chief Whip would be able to utter the same words of praise and thanksgiving for the work of the Backbench Business Committee, because the Committee has been an utter pain for the Government Whips Office. It is no good the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) nodding her head, because the Committee has been bringing to the Floor of the House issues that very often neither Front-Bench team wanted brought here—they wanted to suppress them. That has been the great strength of this Committee.
	If the coalition Government have a problem with who was elected to the Backbench Business Committee or how it was elected, they have nobody to blame but themselves, because some posts went uncontested. That shows a remarkable lack of assiduousness, given how the Whips Offices usually try to influence such elections. We should have no doubt that this operation today is an exercise designed to reduce the accountability and responsiveness of the Committee.
	Let us briefly consider the detail of the motion. Most important is the proposal that the regularity of elections will reduced: they will be held once per Parliament. If this motion through, the election in the new Session will be the last this Parliament—

David Heath: No.

Bernard Jenkin: I beg my hon. Friend’s pardon if I misunderstood things, and I stand corrected.
	The motion is also determined to reduce the way in which the membership of the Committee reflects the views of the whole House, on the basis of the spurious idea that parties voting for Members of other parties have a malign intent. The Chair is to be chosen from the Opposition, but that will reduce the Chair’s authority. The great authority that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) has is that she was elected as much by the votes of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as by the votes of the Labour party. She was not a choice predetermined by the Standing Orders of this House and it was not a predetermined choice that she was chosen from her party.
	For all those reasons, we should want to defend the existing system, not least because the Wright Committee intended the election of the Backbench Business Committee and its Chair to be carried out on a different basis from the elections to the other Select Committees. The Deputy Leader of the House keeps saying that he has given a reason for needing to pre-empt the findings of the Procedure Committee. He may have given a “reason”, but it is an excuse and a motive; it is not a justification for pre-empting the findings of the Procedure Committee.
	I wish to conclude by making a brief point. Those of us from the previous Parliament who went through—how shall I describe it?—the purifying fire of the expenses debacle came out of it determined that things should change in this House, that politics should change and that at least some of what happens in this House should
	be taken out of the ghetto of the Westminster political parties talking to themselves. Are we now seeing this House reverting to type? Are we seeing the vested interests beginning to reassert themselves? I urge this House to be ever-more vigilant to make sure that that does not occur and ever-more vigilant because we are seeing today how determined the forces of darkness in politics can be.

John Redwood: This debate is about power and those on the Front Benches are misguided in thinking that it will enhance ministerial power to seek to influence the way in which Back-Bench business is conducted against the interests of all the Back Benchers who have turned up and spoken in today’s debate. It is wrong of those on the two Front Benches to impose a Whip on Ministers and shadow Ministers—[ Interruption. ] I accept, then, that there is no such Whip on shadow Ministers, but we will see. We will study the Division results with great interest to see the view that shadow Ministers take. It is wrong for Front Benchers to seek to stop Back Benchers continuing with their arrangements in a timely way.
	I share a common cause with my Front Benchers as I happen to think, as they seem to, that Ministers do not have enough power. I think that there is a danger that under any Government we could have Ministers in office but not in power, but the reason is not our powerful Backbench Business Committee and the fact that it makes them come to this House to discuss things that they do not wish to discuss. If Ministers do that well, it enhances their stature. The reason is that too many decisions are taken by the European Union, overridden by the European Court of Human Rights or taken by independent quangos. We have the Environment Agency, the Bank of England and United Kingdom Financial Investments; Ministers are very limited in what they can do. I would happily make common cause with those on my Front Bench in getting Ministers more power and think that many of my colleagues would take the same view. We would be cheering them if they came to this House and said that Ministers needed more power to settle our borders, sort out the problems with prisoners, deal with taxation or money supply and so on. We want it to be accountable power, however, which is why we want Ministers to have more power but think that they should come to the House of Commons to answer for how they exercise it.
	Ministers should get real. They are in danger of being in office but not in power because they will not take the accountable power they need to improve our country and to make the necessary changes. Their problem is not the Backbench Business Committee; their problem lies elsewhere. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to wake up and smell the coffee, as the phrase goes these days, and to understand that people want a strong, proud and independent Parliament and that people want their Ministers to come here to talk about the difficult issues on any day. They want Ministers to talk about the issue that they do not want to talk about today, because that is what matters and that is what is topical. A strong and confident Government can debate anything at any time about their conduct, their views and their policies and the more we make them debate it, the stronger their case should be. I want the Opposition to challenge them, I want the Backbench
	Business Committee to challenge them and, above all, I want the decisions that matter for our country to be made here by accountable Ministers.

David Nuttall: There is absolutely no clamour from Back Benchers for any change in the method of election to the Backbench Business Committee. Let us be clear about that. I pray in evidence paragraph 59 of the fifth report of the Procedure Committee of this Session, which states:
	“We have received no adverse comments on the arrangements for the elections to the Backbench Business Committee but there are two issues which have been raised in evidence to us which we now consider.”
	One related to the representation of the minority parties and the Procedure Committee suggested adding a member to the Backbench Business Committee,
	“to be elected by the whole House.”
	The second issue was a rather technical matter relating to by-elections. There was no suggestion that the whole Committee and the nature of its members’ election should be changed.
	I submit as evidence Standing Order 152(1), which states:
	“Select committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments as set out in paragraph (2)”.
	Paragraph (2) then lists 19 Departments; obviously, the Backbench Business Committee is not on that list. The Government have suggested today that the changes in the motion are needed to bring the Backbench Business Committee into line with other Select Committees. Incidentally, however, they also seek to differentiate the Committee from Select Committees when it comes to the length of membership. I understand why some Members might be confused about this. The Backbench Business Committee is and should be regarded as a Committee of the House and should be treated differently from Select Committees. On that basis, elections to it should be by the whole House and I urge Members to support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).

Mark Field: This has been a passionate debate and I agreed with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) had to say. Perhaps they gave their case a little less credit by resorting to elements of hyperbole—indeed, there were hints of hysteria coming from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) —but I agree fundamentally with what they said. This Executive, like every other Executive and—this is even sadder to see—shadow Executive, have an unhealthy tendency to meddle in matters that are best left to Parliament. That should rightly be resisted and it is through the Backbench Business Committee that we try our best to resist.
	Unlike any other Member who has spoken, perhaps, I think the motion is more of a curate’s egg. I believe that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee should be an Opposition Member. As has been pointed
	out, in the initial election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who is a very good friend of mine and a distinguished parliamentarian, was pitted against the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire. I thought it would be very unhealthy for that role, particularly initially, to be in the hands of a former Deputy Speaker of 13 years’ standing who was therefore very much part of the establishment, so I voted with my head rather than my heart. Like every other Member who has spoken I have been extremely pleased with the outcome and I pay great tribute to the wonderful work that the hon. Lady does in chairing the Committee.
	Let me pick up on the contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. The Leader of the House would do well to recognise that every single party in the House of Commons is a minority party, and I think it is quite wrong that we are prescribing the rights of the minority parties. The suggestion in amendment (a), which I think would have come through with the Procedure Committee, that there should be a special member for all the minority parties, is something we should follow.
	I also believe there are very good reasons why the Backbench Business Committee should have some anonymous rules, as has been suggested by Ministers, for the election of its members, because it is by its nature an anonymous Committee: it is a Back-Bench Committee looking at Back-Bench business. I say that as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which, alongside the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, has different election arrangements. Those anomalies are open to a certain amount of criticism but are, none the less, rightly tolerated. If we do not adopt that approach, we run the risk of having approved party candidates rather than those who have the broadest party support. I shall be supporting amendments (a) and (d). There are elements of the motion with which I agree, but I regret the way in which it has led to the rancour we have seen in the past hour or so in this debate.

Richard Shepherd: I recall that the Leader of the House was one of the most eloquent advocates of Dr Tony Wright’s proposed reforms in this area. I also remember a famous conference speech in which he said that we would not resort to guillotines in the manner that had happened in the past. I also remember that when I was a student, the constitutional writers of the time used to discuss and describe the role and function of the Leader of the House. Fifty years ago they would argue that it was the most important role in the management of the House of Commons. The Leader of the House brought the views of the House to the Government and would try and influence them in the interests of the House and in the interests of the Government. It is a divided position; it is not an easy one. Yet here we see on the Order Paper, in the name of the Leader of the House, a motion that clearly has not been the result of any form of consultation, but has come from the very bowels of Government to assert their own primacy yet again.
	The debate is about the Backbench Business Committee. This is Back-Bench business, in a sense, yet we know the apparatus, as has been described by many Conservative
	Members, through which the motion has come about. It is not to the credit of the Leader of the House that his name is the first of the proposers.
	The reforms have not been bad. They have been rather successful, and maybe it is their success that arouses fear. After all, we had a debate on a referendum. That is something that no Government—Labour or the present Government—would have tabled. We were able to discuss matters on which debate had been denied to Members for a very long time. I support much of the work of the Backbench Business Committee. It is essential that it carries on in future. I have always supported—
	One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order,  7 March ).
	Amendment proposed:(d), leave out paragraph (1). —(Mr Bone).
	The House divided:

Ayes 105, Noes 186.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed:(a), at end of paragraph (1), after ‘choose’, insert:
	‘; and that the members of those parties who would not otherwise be represented on the Committee, or of no party, should choose one Member to represent them on the Committee by a secret ballot of those Members’.—(Natascha Engel.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 101, Noes 166.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Q uestion put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 203, Noes 82.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) this House endorses the principle that parties should elect members of the Backbench Business Committee each Session and thereafter when a vacancy arises in a secret ballot of all Members of that party by whichever transparent and democratic method they choose.
	(2) Standing Order No. 122D (Election of Backbench Business Committee) shall be amended as follows—
	(a) line 7, at end, insert—
	‘(ba) No Member may be a candidate for the chair of the committee if that Member’s party is represented in Her Majesty’s Government.’;
	(b) in line 12, leave out from second ‘of’ to end of line 14 and insert ‘a party represented in Her Majesty’s Government and no fewer than ten shall be members of a party not so represented or of no party’;
	(c) line 28, leave out paragraph (2);
	(d) line 64, leave out sub-paragraph (b); and
	(e) in the Title, after the word ‘of’, insert ‘chair of’.
	(3) Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee) shall be amended as follows—
	(a) line 7, leave out paragraph (3) and insert—
	‘(3) The chair of the committee shall continue as chair for the remainder of the Session in which that person is elected as chair unless the chair is declared vacant by the Speaker under the provisions of Standing Order No. 122C (Resignation or removal of chairs of select committees) as applied by paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 122D (Election of 25 Backbench Business Committee).’;
	(b) in line 12, leave out ‘and members’;
	(c) line 21, at end, insert—
	‘(6A) The Committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the Committee and who are of a party not represented on the Committee or of no party to attend its meetings and, at the discretion of the chair, take part in its proceedings, but—
	(a) no more than one Member may be so invited to attend in respect of the same meeting;
	(b) a Member so invited shall not move any motion or amendment to any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum.’.

Committee on Standards and Committee of Privileges

Dawn Primarolo: With the permission of the House, we will deal with motions 2, 3 and 4 together. I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendments to motion 2 in the names of Sir Alan Meale, Sir Paul Beresford and Natascha Engel. The amendments will be debated with the main motion and the questions necessary to dispose of the motion will be put at the end of the debate. We have approximately 45 minutes.

George Young: I beg to move,
	That—
	(1) The following new Standing Order be made, to have effect from the date specified in paragraph (6) of this order—
	‘Committee on Standards
	(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee on Standards—
	(a) to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; and
	(b) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and which have been drawn to the committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to such code of conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.
	(2) The committee shall consist of ten Members, and at least two and no more than three lay members.
	(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
	(4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, and at least two lay members, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.
	(5) Lay members may take part in proceedings of the committee and of any sub-committee to which they are appointed and may ask questions of witnesses, but lay members may not move any motion or any amendment to any motion or draft report, and may not vote.
	(6) The quorum of the committee shall be five members who are Members of this House, and the quorum of any sub-committee shall be three members who are Members of this House.
	(7) The committee and any sub-committee may not proceed to business unless at least one lay member is present.
	(8) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to adjourn from place to place;
	(b) subject to the provisions of paragraph (9) of this order, to report from time to time;
	(c) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.
	(9) Any lay member present at a meeting at which a report has been agreed shall have the right to submit a paper setting out that lay member’s opinion on the report. The Committee shall not
	consider a motion that the Chair make a report to the House until it has ascertained whether any lay member present wishes to submit such a paper; and any such paper shall be appended to the report in question before it is made to the House.
	(10) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee or any sub-committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of a sub-committee or of the Commissioner, be laid before the committee or any sub-committee.
	(11) The committee, or any sub-committee, shall have power to refer to unreported evidence of the former Committees on Standards and Privileges and to any documents circulated to any such committee.
	(12) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which the public are admitted to be broadcast.
	(13) The Attorney General, the Advocate General and the Solicitor General, being Members of the House, may attend the committee or any subcommittee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee or subcommittee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee or sub-committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.’
	(2) The following new Standing Order be made—
	‘Lay members of the Committee on Standards: appointment, etc.
	(1) Lay members shall be appointed to the Committee on Standards by a resolution of the House on a motion made under the provisions of this order and shall remain as lay members in accordance with the provisions of this order.
	(2) No person may be first appointed as a lay member if that person is or has been a Member of this House or a Member of the House of Lords; and any person so appointed shall cease to be a lay member upon becoming a Member of this House or of the House of Lords.
	(3) No person may be appointed as a lay member unless that person has been selected on the basis of a fair and open competition.
	(4) A person appointed as a lay member may resign as a lay member by giving notice to the House of Commons Commission.
	(5) A person appointed as a lay member shall be dismissed from that position only following a resolution of the House, after the House of Commons Commission has reported that it is satisfied that the person should cease to be a lay member; and any such report shall include a statement of the Commission’s reasons for its conclusion.
	(6) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2), (4) and (5) of this order, a person appointed as a lay member shall continue as a lay member for the remainder of the Parliament in which that person was first appointed.
	(7) A person first appointed as a lay member who has been a lay member for the remainder of one Parliament may be re-appointed by a resolution of the House in the subsequent Parliament, and the provisions of paragraph (3) of this order shall not apply to any such re-appointment. The period of re-appointment shall be specified in the resolution of the House for reappointment and shall not exceed two years from the dissolution of the Parliament in which the person was first appointed as a lay member, and a resolution under this paragraph shall cease to have effect on the dissolution of the Parliament in which the resolution of the House for reappointment was made.
	(8) No person may be re-appointed as a lay member other than in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (7) of this order.
	(9) No motion may be made under the provisions of this order unless—
	(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
	(b) the motion is made on behalf of the House of Commons Commission by a Member of the Commission.
	(10) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions made under the provisions of this order not later than one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
	(11) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed.’
	(3) The following new Standing Order be made, to have effect from the date specified in paragraph (6) of this order—
	‘Committee of Privileges
	(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee of Privileges, to consider specific matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House.
	(2) The committee shall consist of ten Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.
	(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
	(4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, of whom three shall be a quorum, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.
	(5) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.
	(6) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries be laid before the committee or any sub-committee.
	(7) The committee shall have power to refer to unreported evidence of the former Committees on Standards and Privileges and to any documents circulated to any such committee.
	(8) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which the public are admitted to be broadcast.
	(9) The Attorney General, the Advocate General and the Solicitor General, being Members of the House, may attend the committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.’
	(4) From the date specified in paragraph (6) of this order—
	(a) Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees) shall be amended, in line 12, by leaving out ‘the Committee on Standards and Privileges’ and inserting ‘the Committee of Privileges, the Committee on Standards’;
	(b) Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) shall be repealed;
	(c) in Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards), in each place where the words ‘Committee on Standards and Privileges’ occur, there shall be substituted the words ‘Committee on Standards’.
	(5) From the date specified in paragraph (6) of this order, the Order of the House of 19 July 2010 (Liaison Committee (Membership)) shall be amended by leaving out ‘Standards and Privileges’ and inserting, at the appropriate place in alphabetical order, ‘Privileges’ and ‘Standards’.
	(6) The date specified for the purposes of paragraphs (1) and (3) to (5) of this order is the first sitting day of the first month after the month in which the House agrees a resolution under Standing Order (Lay members of the Committee on Standards: appointment, etc.) appointing two or three lay members of the Committee on Standards.

Dawn Primarolo: With this, we shall discuss motions 3 and 4 on pay for Chairs of Select Committees.

George Young: On 2 December 2010, the House agreed, without Division, to a motion agreeing with the principle set out in the twelfth report of the Committee
	on Standards in Public Life that lay members should sit on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The House invited the Select Committee on Procedure to bring forward proposals to implement that.
	The Procedure Committee published its proposals in its sixth report of the current Session, which was published on 7 November last year. The Government, and I am sure the whole House, are very grateful to that Committee for its work. The motion draws extensively on the work of the Procedure Committee, and follows consultation with that Committee, the Standards and Privileges Committee and others. I am pleased to say that the Procedure Committee has written to confirm that it broadly accepts the approach that we propose to take, and the support of the Standards and Privileges Committee is apparent from the welcome decision of the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) to add his name to the motion.
	Before turning to the provisions of the motions, I will remind the House briefly of the background to the proposals. I need hardly remind Members that the expenses scandal rocked public faith in the House to its foundations. One part of that crisis lay in the House’s approach to disciplining Members, which, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life observed, did not command full public confidence. As Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee at the time when the Committee on Standards in Public Life inquired into these matters, I said that the then Standards and Privileges Committee:
	“would be very happy to consider having outside members sitting on the Standards and Privileges Committee…particularly to assist us in coming to judgments where people may feel at the moment we are possibly too lenient.”
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in November 2009 that
	“there should be at least two lay Members who have never been Parliamentarians on the Standards and Privileges Committee”,
	who
	“should be chosen through the official public appointments process and formally approved by the House”.
	The House endorsed that recommendation after its debate on 2 December 2010. I will not attempt to summarise all that was said on that day, but the most powerful case was made by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley. He said:
	“Lay members provide the public with reassurance that the Committees are not cosy gentlemen’s clubs, where deals are stitched up and scandals are hushed up. They can also bring valuable outside experience and expertise with them.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 999.]
	He referred to the lay members of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliament Standards Authority. As a member of that committee, I can assure the House that the contribution of lay members is invaluable.
	I have already referred to the specific recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that lay members should never have been parliamentarians. That is reflected in the motion, which also mirrors the statutory definition of lay members used for the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA.
	Amendment (b), tabled by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), runs contrary to the letter and, more importantly, the spirit of the Kelly recommendations. I invite him to consider whether it would really enhance the credibility of the House’s
	disciplinary procedures to appoint as a lay member a former hon. Member who left the House in 2005. I fear that that might be portrayed not as a fresh start but as a return to the bad old days, and of course public perception is part of the issue that we are seeking to address. I urge him not to move his amendment and invite the House to reject it if it comes to a vote.
	Of course, there is a difference between agreement in principle that a change should take place and agreement on how it will operate in practice. A number of significant issues have been raised about lay membership of a Select Committee, and I will explain briefly how those issues have been tackled in the motions.
	The first issue, identified by the Procedure Committee, was that although there had been no suggestion that lay members were appropriate for the consideration of privilege matters, there was no straightforward way to exclude them from such business within the structure of a single Committee. The solution proposed by that Committee, which the main motion today incorporates, was to create two separate Committees, one on standards and one on privileges. That is actually a reversion to the position that existed until 1995.
	As the Procedure Committee recommended, provision has been made in motions 3 and 4 for the Chair of the Committee on Standards to inherit the pay now received by the Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Government have also made it clear in their response that the Chair of the Committee on Standards, like that of the current Committee, should be drawn from the Opposition Benches. In accordance with the current arrangements, that does not need to be set out in Standing Orders.
	Our intention today is not to change the composition of the Committees. The two Committees may have a common membership, and they may choose to elect the same Chair. Even if that is not the case, the Committee of Privileges is likely to meet less often and will be able to consider only matters referred to it. In those circumstances, and following the precedent of the Committee on Members’ Expenses, pay for the Chair of the Committee of Privileges is unlikely to be appropriate.

Chris Bryant: I wholeheartedly support what the Leader of the House is doing in separating the two Committees, which is long overdue. Will the process remain that a matter of privilege is raised through the Speaker and then in a three-minute speech, before going to the Privileges Committee? Will that Committee also be able to consider any draft legislation on privilege that the Leader of the House publishes? I believe he told me earlier this year that he would publish draft legislation before Easter.

George Young: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the explanatory memorandum, he will see that the terms of reference of the new Committee of Privileges will be the same as those of the relevant part of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. There will be no change to the process by which a matter is referred to the Committee, or to its remit. The position will remain that it can consider only things that the House refers to it and that are within its terms of reference.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful. The other bit of the process that has always worked well thus far is that whenever the Committee on Standards and Privileges
	has produced a report, Government time has been provided to debate it. Will that be true of both Committees in future?

George Young: Again, the hon. Gentleman anticipates something that I may say a little later, but if he looks at paragraph 176 of the Wright Committee’s report, he will see what is deemed Back-Bench business and what is deemed business that the Government should schedule. It states:
	“Backbenchers should schedule backbench business. Ministers should give up their role in the scheduling of any business except that which is exclusively Ministerial business, comprising Ministerial-sponsored legislation and associated motions, substantive non-legislative motions required in support of their policies and Ministerial statements”.
	It may help the hon. Gentleman if I say that the Government will ensure that there is adequate time to debate on the Floor of the House any matter referred to the House by the Committee on Standards or the Committee of Privileges. I suspect that there will be a dialogue with the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that time is available at the appropriate moment.
	Amendment (c), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), would set down in Standing Orders a requirement that the membership of the two new Committees should always be the same. The Procedure Committee examined the case for a requirement of identical membership in paragraph 63 of its report, and concluded that the case had not been made. I recognise that there is a case for an element of shared membership, and possibly even for identical membership, but the Government, like the Procedure Committee, do not support the notion that there should be an inflexible provision to that effect in Standing Orders. With that assurance, I hope he will not move his amendment. In splitting the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Government do not intend to revisit the decisions taken at the beginning of this Session on appropriate Committee membership.
	The second issue that has been raised about lay members is their status. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has stated that
	“if the proposed external members of the Standards and Privileges Committee are to carry credibility, they need to have full voting rights.”
	The Procedure Committee considered the matter carefully and in great detail, and it invited the House to study with care the arguments for and against full voting rights. As the Government made clear in our response, we have carefully considered the arguments about whether lay members should have full voting rights. We have concluded that it would not be appropriate to grant such rights in the first instance, in view of the authoritative evidence given to the Procedure Committee that it would create a risk that lay members’ participation would not have the protection of parliamentary privilege.
	Lay members will be able to participate fully in evidence taking and informal consideration of draft reports. In addition, there will be two specific protections for their position. The first is the requirement that any written opinion of a lay member present at the relevant meeting on a report agreed by the Committee must be published as part of its report. The second is that the Committee cannot conduct any business unless at least one lay member is present.
	A decision to proceed on that basis will provide a guarantee of the effective participation of lay members in the decision-making processes of the Committee, and can be taken without prejudice to subsequent consideration of full voting rights. The Government will consider the case for legislation that would place beyond doubt the position of a Committee on Standards including lay members with full voting rights, as part of our work on preparing the forthcoming draft parliamentary privilege Bill and the accompanying Green Paper.
	The third and final issue that has been raised about lay members was voiced in the debate in December 2010 and echoed in the Procedure Committee’s report. It relates to the selection of lay members and control over how they subsequently carry out their work. The motion proposes to entrust that matter to the House of Commons Commission, which would also take responsibility for a motion for dismissal in the unlikely eventuality that it should prove necessary. I believe that the Commission, chaired by the Speaker, is the best way to ensure that there is a fair and open process that leads to the House being asked to appoint only excellent candidates.
	I know that some concern has been expressed about the term of office of lay members. The Procedure Committee recommended single five-year terms. However, it also acknowledged uncertainty about appointments straddling two Parliaments. The motion therefore provides for appointments for the remainder of one Parliament and reappointments for a period of up to two years in a new Parliament. Although I understand the advantages of a single term, the Government remain to be convinced that it is appropriate for lay members to be appointed for a period that, by definition, lasts longer than the appointment of hon. Members. There will be a very strong presumption indeed that lay members will be reappointed for a further term at the start of the subsequent Parliament. If they were not, the Committee on Standards would find it difficult to operate. I offer my commitment that the Government will assist in such a process.

Mark Field: I accept that there is a general demand for lay members, but I am sceptical as to how independent-minded they will be—I have in mind the less-than-independent IPSA as a guideline. I will not detain the Leader of the House on that.
	There is a more detailed issue: cost. If lay members are involved in the Committee on Standards, especially lay members with a legal background, surely any Member of the House before it will demand expensive legal representation. Will the cost of that representation be met by the Committee, or will an individual Member be expected to meet it through his own resources?

George Young: There are no changes to the resources available to hon. Members who appear before the Standards Committee. We are suggesting a per diem remuneration for independent members—£300, I believe, which is parallel to what independent members of SCIPSA are paid. In putting lay members on the Standards Committee, we are not making any other changes to how the Committee operates. As I said earlier in answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the
	memorandum says that all the basic rules for the two separate Committees remain unchanged apart from the addition of lay members.

Mark Field: There might be no desire to change the Committee’s procedure, but I suspect that there will be a different approach outside, particularly among the media. There will be much more scrutiny of a Committee that has lay members, particularly if they are high-profile legal figures. What protection will there be for MPs who find themselves subject to an investigation under the new regime, so that they have what they consider to be essential legal advice, which might come extremely expensively?

George Young: My answer now is the same one I gave to my hon. Friend a moment ago: there is no change in the resources available to hon. Members. Currently, some decide to take legal advice and pay for it out of their own pocket; others simply represent themselves. We are not proposing changes to the way in which Members interface with the Committee, but seeking to ensure that the Committee’s decisions have greater credibility in the outside world by adding lay members to it. That is the only change that we propose to make.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who said that high-powered legal figures might be appointed, I would be very concerned if judges were appointed to the panel as lay members, because that would be against the separation of powers. Will the Leader of the House give an indication as to whether judges would be appropriate?

George Young: We are trying to get lay members. Whether a judge is a “lay member” is an interesting question. Speaking off the cuff, I do not think we propose to exclude any particular profession. Whether a high-powered judge would want to put his name forward to the House of Commons Commission for this interesting post I am not sure, but it will be a matter for the Commission to consider the candidates that come forward. Some might have a legal background. I am not quite sure that it would be appropriate to appoint a serving judge as a lay member, but somebody with a legal background might not be wholly disqualified.
	May I move on to safer territory, namely amendment (a), which was tabled by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee? The amendment would exclude business arising on a report from the Committee on Standards from the definition of Back-Bench business. It would thus prevent the Backbench Business Committee ever scheduling business arising from the work of one Select Committee and return exclusive control over that business to the Government, which is contrary to the spirit of the Wright recommendations—I read paragraph 176 a few moments ago.
	The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) envisages that the establishment of a Committee on Standards to accommodate lay members should be an occasion to reopen the settlement reached in 2010 on the scope and calculation of Back-Bench business. Although there may be a dialogue on that matter in due course, I do not think this is the right forum in which to
	consider it. It could certainly be considered in the review currently being conducted by the Procedure Committee. I would invite the hon. Lady not to move her amendment. If she does, I urge the House to oppose it if it is pressed to a Division.

Natascha Engel: I put my name down to speak in the debate, but my point is such a small one that I can make it in an intervention. The issue is not whether reports from the Committee on Standards are defined as Back-Bench business, but time. Thirty-five days a Session are allocated to Back-Benchers, but that is limited, and time for debates on such reports will be scooped out of Back-Bench time in an unpredictable way. If the Leader of the House confirms that any time taken by debates on those reports is in addition to the 35 days, I will be more than happy not to move the amendment.

George Young: The overall settlement of 35 days included an allowance for standards and privileges matters. As I have said, what the Government are left with does not include such business. The amendment is an ingenious shop-steward bid—if I may say to the hon. Lady—for extra time. If a matter comes before the House from the Standards Committee, or indeed from the Privileges Committee, there will be a debate in the House on that matter at the right time, whoever provides the allocation. That is the assurance that the House wants, and we can have a dialogue offline, as it were, on how that is accounted for in the annual tally between the Backbench Business Committee and the Government.

Chris Bryant: But actually, that is not quite how the process works now, is it? First, privilege issues, as opposed to standards issues, must go through the Speaker, who then forcibly makes time available, normally on the next day, and therefore always in Government time. The Leader of the House obviously thinks that he has made some improvements on Wright today, but perhaps another improvement he could make is to guarantee that time to debate privilege matters will come out of Government time.

George Young: There is a distinction between a debate when a matter is referred to the Privileges Committee, which is normally relatively short, and a debate on a report from the Privileges Committee or the Standards Committee when they have concluded their consideration, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says: if the Speaker decrees that a matter should be debated, it is debated. In response to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, I said that it is important that the House debates such reports once we have them. The business managers and the Backbench Business Committee can have a dialogue on whether the time comes out of the Committee’s quota, which, I should say in passing, we have generously exceeded in the current Session—we have gone way over 35 days to somewhere near 50 days.

Thomas Docherty: The Leader of the House will be aware that we have had only a single “defence of the realm” debate this Session. The time for that debate was eaten into because the Backbench Business Committee had to find time for a European debate ahead of it. Does he not see that there is a real danger that such important debates will be curtailed if he does not guarantee the time?

George Young: This risks becoming a general debate on the role of the Backbench Business Committee and whether the time allocated to it is generous enough. I have sought to address the proposition put by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire. My case is that the putting of lay members on the Standards Committee is not an opportunity to revisit the balance of time between the Government and the Backbench Business Committee. My assertion is that that is best done in the context of the review of the Committee currently being undertaken by the Procedure Committee. When we have that review, we will be in a better position to take that dialogue forward. In the meantime, I give an assurance that any report that comes from the Standards Committee will be debated promptly.
	To conclude, I believe the motion provides an effective and appropriate means of giving effect to the principle agreed by the House on 2 December 2010. It represents one more step to ensure that public confidence in the conduct of hon. Members is maintained and strengthened, and I commend it to the House.

Angela Eagle: The Opposition support the principle that lay members should sit on a newly constituted Committee on Standards. We also understand and support the pragmatic solution of splitting the current Committee in two to avoid the complications and uncertainty that could arise if non-MPs were to sit on the Privileges Committee.
	When the issue was first considered at the end of last year, we did not seek to divide the House on the approach suggested. Although it is not directly analogous because all MPs are elected—and therefore ultimately accountable to their constituents—the principle of appointing lay members to a standards Committee is widely adopted in other areas of public life. For example, both the Bar Council and the General Medical Council have lay members.
	On the other hand, the Press Complaints Commission also has lay members, and given the mess that it now finds itself in, perhaps we should take this opportunity to remind ourselves that lay membership of any committee is not in itself a complete answer to the challenges of upholding the standards of conduct and behaviour expected of any particular group of people, be they lawyers, doctors, MPs or—dare I say it—journalists. Undoubtedly, however, the presence of lay members should reassure the public that the Standards Committee is not some kind of cosy stitch-up but is there to deliver a rigorous and robust process that is fair to all and therefore credible. That is obviously in the public interest.
	I congratulate the Procedure Committee on its work on this issue since the House’s resolution last year and on bringing this change about. I note, however, that the Government have ignored the Committee’s recommendation to give the House a further opportunity to vote on the principle of lay membership. Although the Opposition are in favour of the principle, it is noticeable that in evidence to the Procedure Committee a number of Members raised concerns about the appointment of lay members. Those Members included, from the Government Benches, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).
	In its report, the Procedure Committee states that
	“it is right to register our concern at the level of unease felt by many Members about the House’s decision of 2 December. It may well be that, having considered the examination of the practical and privilege implications as set out in our report, the House may wish to reconsider its view of the principle of adding lay members to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.”
	Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government have chosen not to tackle this unease head-on and do as the Procedure Committee suggested? Perhaps it is because of the decision to split the current Committee, but I would like to hear the Government’s explanation for their decision not to have a further vote on the principle itself.
	We support the appointment of lay members to the Standards Committee. The Procedure Committee has found that the appointment of lay members is not completely without precedent—it cites a 1933 committee on the future government of India. I must say, however, that that is a rather particular example and not one likely to be replicated any time soon. It must not be assumed that simply appointing lay members to the Standards Committee will do the trick. It is clearly not a panacea.
	Moreover, how lay members should take part in Committee proceedings needs to be clearly defined. This the Procedure Committee has done. It has recommended that Members of the House make up the majority of the new Standards Committee—after all, it will be a Committee of the House—and the proposals outlined in the proposed new Standing Orders, which adopts the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, suggests appointing at least two but no more than three lay members. That strikes a sensible balance.
	We also agree with the proposed powers of lay members as outlined in the motion. The Standards Committee will be a Committee of the House, and the Members of Parliament who serve on it will be able to do so first and foremost because they successfully stood for election. Therefore, they are ultimately accountable to their constituents for their actions, as are all of us, and following the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, they submit themselves to that judgment every five years. Lay members of the Committee will not be elected but will be appointed, and they will not have to justify their actions at the ballot box.
	The Procedure Committee therefore had to consider how that difference could best be accommodated in the day-to-day workings of the Committee. It considered two options: whether members of the Committee should have full voting rights or whether they should be appointed with more limited rights. In its impressive survey of the history of Committees of the House and the operation of committees in Parliament’s around the Commonwealth, the Procedure Committee came across few examples of lay members voting. In its survey of the Commonwealth, only the New South Wales Legislative Assembly had given lay members of a Committee voting rights. But that practice, confined to one Committee in New South Wales, has now ceased.
	To give lay members voting rights would also raise difficult questions of privilege, as the Leader of the House pointed out. He also pointed out that the Procedure Committee outlined the issues, as set out in the evidence of the parliamentary Clerk to the Procedure Committee.
	For those reasons, like the Government, we support the second option, which would mean that lay members could fully participate in the Committee by questioning witnesses but could not vote.
	The proposed new Standing Orders require the Committee to publish any paper from a lay member setting out that lay member’s opinion on the report. We recognise that a balance has to be struck if lay members of the Committee are not to have voting rights. Nevertheless, we recognise the concerns raised by some Members, including the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, about the publication of dissenting reports. I note that the right for a lay member to publish a dissenting report was described in the Government’s weekend spin on our proceedings today as a “golden share”, which is a nicer name for a veto. Perhaps the Leader of the House could let us know in more detail how he sees that power working.
	Amendment (b) suggests that ex-Members should be eligible for selection as lay members after only five years out of the House. That seems like a way of ensuring that lay members are not quite lay members and runs the risk of undermining the credibility that the reforms will bring about. Amendment (c) suggests that the membership of the soon-to-be-separated Standards and Privileges Committee should be the same. That runs the risk of undermining the separation, and we believe that the membership of these important Committees could easily be different and certainly should not be made the same by changing the Standing Orders.
	I do not want to spend too much time intruding on the debate between the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and the Leader of the House, but her amendment raises an extremely important issue about the number of days allocated to her Committee. That is one of those issues that will rumble on. Suffice it to say that I have considerable sympathy with what she says.
	We support the other proposals in the proposed new Standing Orders. They are a welcome advance designed to improve public confidence, but they are not a panacea. The PCC, for example, had lay members, and that did not make the body effective or ensure that the organisation retained public confidence. Public confidence in Parliament, as the Leader of the House said, was significantly damaged by the expenses scandal. The appointment of lay members will not in itself restore that confidence, but it is one of many steps taken since then to repair the damage done.
	I have been a Member of the House for 20 years, and I believe that, overwhelmingly, Members are committed to public service, strive to serve their constituents and seek at all times to uphold the Nolan principles.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady mentioned the Nolan principles. I am a member of that committee, in its latest guise, and I wonder whether she agrees that over the years the Committee on Standards in Public Life has done some useful work in scoping out the code of conduct and the work of the commissioner as a fully independent investigator, for example, and of course in proposing lay membership.

Angela Eagle: I am more than happy to agree with the interjection that the hon. Gentleman made just as I was about to finish my remarks. The Nolan committee clearly has a lot to be proud of for how it has developed
	the code of conduct—we will have a debate on that later. It has done a great deal to codify and put in good order the standards that should be expected of every single Member of the House.
	As I was just about to say, the Opposition support the proposed new Standing Orders and will not seek to divide the House.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I inform the House that there are 18 minutes left before the debate expires. I think I saw four Members standing. I do not want to set a time limit, so I hope that each Member will make a brief contribution, enabling all four to participate.

Paul Beresford: I shall be antipodeanly succinct; I shall be minutes.
	I merely want to thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. There has been discussion in the Standards and Privileges Committee, and between the Committee and him, following which some positive changes have been made. In particular, we mentioned whether the lay members may, or have to, produce a report. The reason behind my amendment (c)—this was picked up and covered by the Leader of the House—is that there is a logic and a bureaucratic advantage to having the same Members on each Committee. However, as was said by the Leader of the House—and, to my amusement, by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)—there is also the opportunity, if required and if appropriate, for that to be altered. For that reason, I shall not press my amendment.

Alan Meale: I commend the work of the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee and its members for the excellent work that they do on our behalf. We know that their work is arduous and at times difficult. Let me state at the outset that it is my intention not to challenge but to improve the proposed Standing Orders.
	If accepted, my amendment (b) would in no way undermine the Committee’s excellent work. As many in the Chamber will realise, I and another Member, who sits on the Government Benches, act as co-opted representatives of the retired Members association, a body that was established to represent the interests of retired Members, of whom there are hundreds, many very elderly indeed. When these Standing Orders are approved, they will undoubtedly affect ex-Members of Parliament, or at the very least are likely to affect them. For instance, the proposed Standing Orders would quite rightly deal with the register and any reviews of it. That could be of interest to ex-Members, not least ex-Ministers, given the role they play after leaving office. The Standing Orders will also allow papers and records to be sent for that are more than likely to involve ex-Members and their time in this place.
	Importantly, my amendment does not ask for someone from the ranks of ex-Members to be appointed as a lay member; indeed, I fully accept the principle of free and open competition involved in any such appointment.
	However, I feel strongly that ex-Members should not be excluded from the process, although I accept the need for a certain period of time to elapse. That is why I propose that any ex-Member would have had to have left Parliament a minimum of five years previously—it would probably be longer than that—before being even considered as a lay member. They could not be a Member in this place or the House of Lords, and if they became a Member at any time during their lay membership, that would mean their ceasing to be a lay member.
	I was interested to hear what the Leader of House said about those who left this place in 2005. Like the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), I think we need to cut this debate short, but I have to say that ex-Members of Parliament, like current Members, are not pariahs. They are not the unclean or the unwashed; they are people who have given many, many years of loyal public service in this place. Most of the people who retired at the last two elections—indeed, the vast majority—were guilty of no impropriety and left with no challenge whatever to their characters. This is an important matter: these changes to standards will affect ex-Members, and it is really quite wrong to introduce Standing Orders just so that we can be clear about the public and press perception of those Standings Orders in future. Those ex-Members have the right to be represented.
	I accept what the Leader of the House said about this probably not being the right time to pursue such an amendment. For that reason, I will not press my amendment to a vote. However, I say this to the Leader of the House: in future years this issue will have to be dealt with, because we cannot have a situation where hundreds of ex-Members—indeed, there might be thousands by that time—are affected by Standing Orders that they are not able to challenge or play any part in whatever.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Lorely Burt?

Lorely Burt: I just want to speak briefly to the amendment standing in my name on the revised code of conduct—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Lady is speaking to the wrong group of amendments. I have her down to speak in the next debate; that is why I hesitated when I called her.

Kevin Barron: I welcome this motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House; indeed, as Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I appended my name to it. As he said, the Committee has long called for lay members, and I personally have no doubt that having them will be of worth.
	The House has accepted that principle. Indeed, in the debate back in December, I said that for a number of years I had been a lay member of the General Medical Council and that I felt that I had brought some experience to the table—albeit not experience of clinical decision making, but experience that doctors and others could
	consider in sitting in judgment on their fellow professionals and in assessing whether their decisions were the right ones.
	In an ideal world, the Committee would have liked lay members to have had full voting rights and single, non-renewable terms to guard their independence, very much as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has. He has five years and that is it; there is no reappointment. As a consequence, there is no way that he might be looking for any preferment for a second term, from this House or anybody within it. However, we are not in an ideal world. There are significant constitutional barriers and uncertainties about giving lay members full voting rights, and the Leader of the House has made the Government’s position on fixed terms clear. However, this motion still represents a significant step towards ensuring that the House’s disciplinary processes are fair and seen to be fair, and that we benefit from outside experience and expertise. I welcome the change to Standing Orders wholeheartedly.
	As for the other matters that have been discussed—how the Committee will be split up, the timing, the membership of both Committees, and everything else—these are matters for the House. However, what we are doing is the right thing for the House to do and embodies the right principle for us to be establishing, so that people outside this place can have confidence that when we sit in judgment over our peers, people are not looking after the interests of fellow professionals—if that is indeed what we are—but passing right and proper judgment on someone who may have breached the rules.

Natascha Engel: I rise briefly to say that I shall not press my amendment (a), simply because I do not want to detain the House further on Back-Bench business when we are discussing important matters of standards and privileges. However, I will pursue the matter through the Procedure Committee —the Chairman is in the Chamber and will have heard my intervention in this debate—as long as the Leader of the House does not think that the matter rests here, because it does not.

Dawn Primarolo: I call Lorely Burt.

Lorely Burt: Regarding the amendment standing in my name and that of others on the revised code of conduct—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are not on the code of conduct yet; we are on the motions relating to the pay for Chairs of Select Committees and amendments to Standing Orders about standards and privileges. The code of conduct is the next business, and I will definitely call the hon. Lady at the right time—unless she wants to speak in this debate.

Lorely Burt: indicated dissent.

George Young: Briefly, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Leader of the House, asked why we had put back to the House the original proposition
	about lay members. We dealt with that in our response to the Procedure Committee’s report. Basically, what we said was that on 2 December, the House of Commons agreed without Division to a motion that endorsed the principle that lay members should sit on the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Government do not believe it necessary for the House to be asked to restate its acceptance of a principle that it has already agreed without Division. Indeed, there has been broad acceptance of that principle in the debate this evening.
	I am obviously grateful that those who have tabled amendments have said that they do not propose to press them to a Division—a tribute to the eloquence that I must have used at the beginning of this debate.
	The final question that I was asked was about the so-called golden share. I am convinced that the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee will continue to do what has been done in the past, namely to secure unanimous reports on the matters that come before him—or, indeed, her. While I chaired the Committee, I do not think we ever had a vote. I therefore very much hope that it will not be necessary for anybody to table a minority report. However, the fact that the lay members have that option will reassure people outside that the Committee has a broader base than it has had so far, and will avoid the accusation that this is some sort of gentlemen’s club that deals leniently with its members. On that basis, I hope that we can agree the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.

Pay for chairs of Select Committees

Resolved ,
	That—
	(1) this House expresses the opinion that, from the date specified in paragraph (2) of this resolution, the Resolution of the House of 30 October 2003 (Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)), as amended by the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 (Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)), should be further amended in paragraph (1) by leaving out ‘Committee on Standards and Privileges’ and inserting Committee on Standards’.
	(2) The date specified for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the first sitting day of the first month after the month in which the House agrees a resolution under Standing Order (Lay members of the Committee on Standards: appointment, etc.) appointing two or three lay members of the Committee on Standards.— (Sir George Young.)

PAY FOR CHAIRS OF SELECT COMMITTEES (No. 2)

Queen’s Recommendation  signified.
	Ordered,
	That—
	(1) From the date specified in paragraph (2) of this resolution, the Resolution of the House of 30 October 2003 (Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)), as amended by the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 (Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)), be further amended in paragraph (1) by leaving out ‘Committee on Standards and Privileges’ and inserting ‘Committee on Standards’.
	(2) The date specified for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the first sitting day of the first month after the month in which the House agrees a resolution under Standing Order (Lay members of the Committee on Standards: appointment, etc.) appointing two or three lay members of the Committee on Standards.— (Sir George Young.)

Code of Conduct

Dawn Primarolo: We now come to the debate on the code of conduct and on all-party groups. Motion 5 relates to the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the revised code of conduct, which will be debated together with motion 6, which relates to all-party groups. Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Mr Charles Walker—

Greg Knight: And Lorely Burt.

Dawn Primarolo: And Lorely Burt. I call Mr Kevin Barron to open the debate.

Kevin Barron: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you rightly say, there are two motions on the Order Paper in my name. The first is the more important: it invites the House to approve a revised code of conduct. The House of Commons has long had resolutions covering conduct, but the idea of a code of conduct is relatively recent. It was not until 1995 that the House endorsed the principle of such a code. Since then, the code has been revised, in 2002 and in 2005. This is only the fourth version of the code since the first version was approved in 1996.
	In approving the code of conduct today, the House will be setting the framework for the rules that will, I hope, last for the remainder of this Parliament and into the next. It is important to be clear about what the code is for. It is not a rule book that sets out precise instructions about what is and is not permissible in each case. As the commissioner has set out in a memorandum attached to our report, it is a document that establishes
	“broad high-level principles in relation to the main areas of a Member’s conduct”
	and
	“provides a high-level statement of the specific rules to which Members will be held to account”.
	All those who responded to the commissioner’s consultation supported this approach. Relying on detailed rules designed to meet every eventuality creates the risk that people will be encouraged to game the system. We have only to look at the creativity of tax avoidance schemes to see that. The code has a broader function: it helps us to ensure that we behave in a way that is consistent with the seven principles of public life—the Nolan principles, which are part of the code and which underpin its provisions. Where appropriate, the code is supplemented by more detailed statements of some of the rules, such as the guide to the rules, and the rules on the use of House facilities, but Members have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that they abide by the principles of the code.
	The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has the task of reviewing the code and making recommendations to the Committee. In 2002, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that this should be done once in each Parliament. Following the expenses scandal, we judged it better to defer a review of the code in the last Parliament, in order to give Members of the new Parliament an opportunity to review it in the light of experience.
	The commissioner’s memorandum to the Committee sets out all the changes to the code clearly, and explains the reasoning behind each of them. Our report focuses on all the provisions that we consider most significant. Broadly speaking, the commissioner’s proposals have the effect of making the code clearer and removing some repetitions and infelicities. The most significant proposed change is in paragraph 2 of the code. The current code
	“does not seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives”,
	but it does extend to their wider public lives. Our proposal is that the code will no longer apply to Members’ wider public lives. As the commissioner points out, Members’ behaviour in their wider public life will be policed by other regulatory bodies, and there will be no need for the House to intervene.
	There is an important proviso to the exclusion from the code of private and personal lives or wider public life. Those areas should be excluded unless
	“such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
	That is not an entirely new provision. Paragraph 15 of the present code stipulates that Members should
	“never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”
	Personal life is currently excluded from the code, but a Member’s wider public life is not. The code will extend only to conduct which
	“significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the Commons as a whole or of its Members generally”.
	That is a very high hurdle indeed.

Lorely Burt: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment that also stands in my name would prevent the commissioner from becoming involved in issues that were entirely private, while leaving scope for the investigation of breaches in which a personal matter crossed over into a political matter?

Kevin Barron: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I was about to move on to talk about the amendment, and we can look at that question in a moment.
	The amendment is also in the name of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and I am sure that he will explain it later in the debate. It raises significant questions. As I understand it, the amendment would mean that matters relating to a Member’s private and personal life which damaged the reputation and integrity of the House or of Members generally would remain within the scope of the code, but that the commissioner would be precluded from investigating complaints about such matters.
	That raises a number of difficult questions. How would the boundaries of private and personal lives be defined? Would a matter remain private and personal if, for example, it had led to criminal behaviour or a failure to comply with civil obligations? Does something remain purely private and personal when it has been running all over the press and the internet for six or seven days? What is an investigation? Would the commissioner be precluded from giving a Member the chance to put his or her side of the story in private, rather than before the
	Committee as a whole? If the commissioner were unable to investigate extreme cases involving a Member’s personal and private life, would the Committee be expected to investigate them? If so, the Member’s safeguards would be reduced, as the Committee would investigate and pronounce sentence. I would feel uncomfortable about that. We are an adjudication Committee; we do not carry out investigations. The amendment seems to suggest that we might do so, however.
	I understand colleagues’ fears that complaints could flood in about private lives, and that the commissioner might have to investigate matters that were properly no one’s business but that of the Member concerned. That is not what is intended. The House should have trust in the commissioner, in the Committee and in itself. Serious cases of a fall in standards should be decided on the Floor of the House, and not by the commissioner or by the Committee.
	I am confident that the commissioner will not investigate purely private matters. If some future commissioner did so, I am confident that the Committee would take a robust approach, and that any serious sanction recommended by the Committee would come to the House, which would decide whether it was merited. I ask Members to have faith that all those involved, including the House, would use common sense if these measures were ever applied. I, for one, hope that they never will be.
	The new provision is intended only for extreme circumstances, described by the commissioner as those in which a Member’s conduct in certain extremely limited circumstances is so serious and so blatant that it causes significant damage to the reputation of the House. In my judgment, it would be even more damaging to the reputation of the House and to the public’s confidence in the code of conduct—which is one of its key purposes—if the House were unable to take action to express its disapproval and uphold its standards in such circumstances.

Graham Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an example of something “purely private and personal” that he believes would fall within the scope as he has just defined it?

Kevin Barron: Yes. Let us say a Member had committed fraud, not against the public purse—

Graham Brady: rose—

Kevin Barron: This is a hypothetical example, but let me carry on with it. Let us say that a Member committed fraud, not against the public purse but against a family member, and it was argued that this was a purely personal matter. Let us say that this Member was sentenced in a criminal court for six months; would that not be a matter for this House?

Graham Brady: I am grateful—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. After putting a question to a Member, Mr Brady should wait for the answer before intervening again; otherwise, we lose the flow.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has answered my question in one sense, in that the only example he has adduced is one that is patently not “purely private and personal”, but criminal. By definition, then, it would not fall within the scope of the amendment.

Kevin Barron: I have to say that I am not too sure about that, as I do not know the intent behind the amendment, which does not make things as clear as the change in the code does. It could be argued on a point of law that the action taken was not a matter for Parliament because it was a personal action. It might be a criminal action—

William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Barron: Wait. Under the circumstances I described, when someone was sentenced to six months in jail, according to the law and according to the current rules of this House, that individual concerned—obviously, I hope this never happens—would remain a Member because we do not have the legal provisions to get rid of him at present. That is something that we need to consider.

William Cash: We are looking at paragraph 15 of the current code of conduct and paragraph 16 of the amended code of conduct. It is curious that the wording has been changed. Paragraph 15, which is where we are at the moment and seems to me to be sensible, says:
	“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust”—
	that is good—
	“and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”
	The key is “into disrepute”, and it is well known; everyone understands it. Now, for some reason—I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to explain it—paragraph 16 says simply:
	“Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally”,
	but leaves out the whole question of disrepute. What is the difference and why the change?

Kevin Barron: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. First, interventions should be brief. Secondly, I can see that many Members have the code of conduct with them, so the hon. Gentleman could have simply referred to the two paragraphs and the pertinent words in them.

Kevin Barron: I will come back to that, if I may, but I want to carry on citing what the commissioner said in the memorandum, which the Committee accepted. He continued:
	“But the conduct would need to be so serious and so blatant as to make it imperative that the House be given the opportunity to consider the damage done to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
	The code does not seek to judge the behaviour as right or wrong—only the effect it has on the reputation and
	standing of the House. In my view, that is a hugely important thing to defend in our democracy, particularly after the events of the last four years.
	Let me deal with other issues that we need to look at. The Government are currently consulting on proposals to allow the House to decide whether or not to permit the opening of a recall petition in cases where the House considers a Member’s conduct warrants it. Does that mean purely in respect of their public life, or does it mean in their private or personal life as well? I think that we stray into these issues with the amendment, which is why I think the House would be better to stand back from it and have a look at things in the round at a later stage. Without a provision such as the one I am proposing, the House risks being either ineffectual, because the code does not allow it to deal with behaviour that everyone agrees is reprehensible, or arbitrary because it takes action even though such behaviour is not covered by the code. That seems to be the intention. The alternative is that we end up relying on legal semantics to decide whether something is still “purely personal and private”, which is absolutely not how the code should operate.
	As our report says, this is a provision for extreme circumstances. It does not invite the Committee or the House to judge a Member’s purely private and personal relationships and will not be used to do so. This is not to turn the House into a moral arbiter, but to allow it to protect the integrity of Parliament. It is a judgment on the effect of a Member’s conduct on that vital objective, not a judgment on the Member’s morals.
	I cannot support the amendment, but I can suggest an alternative, more appropriate, way forward. The commissioner consults the Committee on certain matters. For example, if someone is referred to the police because the commissioner is concerned about a police investigation that might have implications for the criminal law, the commissioner comes to the Committee and provides evidence to show why the referral should take place. We are then asked either to agree it or reject it. Paragraph 104 of the guide to the rules also makes it clear that the Committee expects to be consulted before accepting an investigation of a complaint against a former Member, a complaint that goes back more than seven years, or one where a member has asked the commissioner to investigate allegations without being the subject of a specific complaint. With a self-referral, the commissioner has to come before the Committee and ask our permission for this to take place. The commissioner is currently consulting on revisions to the guide to the rules.
	Let me say to the House and to those who tabled the amendment that I would be happy to ask the Committee to consider adding consideration of complaints relating to a Member’s private and personal life to the category of matters for which the commissioner should not accept investigation without first consulting the Committee.

Oliver Heald: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would want to point out that the commissioner has tried in the new version to separate what are aspirations for us all to behave well from things that we really should not do. If my hon. Friend were to look at page 42 of the review of the code, he would see that paragraph 15 is now different because of the separation in part 2 of certain aspirational requirements of the code from those
	things that we really must not do, which appear in the later parts of the code. It is largely a stylistic matter. I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman might want to make that point.

Kevin Barron: Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speech. He is a hard-working member of the Committee, as well as a member of other Committees that look into standards in public life. He is well worth listening to.

Menzies Campbell: I apologise for not being in my place for the start of the debate; I was rather taken aback by the speed of previous proceedings. Let me try to put it this way. Building on what the right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, would he accept that the purpose of paragraph 16A is to create a presumption against investigation of private life unless the Committee determines in its judgment that such an investigation should take place?

Kevin Barron: Yes, I understand that point, but I fear that the intention could be misinterpreted. I fully understand the issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises, and I hope that the hon. Member for Broxbourne will tell us about the amendment in more detail. If it is withdrawn, it will be perfectly possible to return to the issue when the revised guide to the rules comes before us in the not-too-distant future. That revision to the guide will be more detailed than what appears in the current three-page code of conduct, which is out for consultation. If the Committee itself has not proposed that the commission should consult before opening an inquiry into personal and private matters, the House could insert such a provision, but I feel that the provision would be more helpful in the guidance than in a code of conduct that tends to contradict elements of it.
	The other important clarification is the introduction of a new paragraph 15 making it clear that Members are personally responsible for the extent to which their use of expenses and allowances accords with the rules. Clearly there is nothing new in that. The current Members’ handbook warns Members that the facilities and services of the House are provided to assist Members in their parliamentary work and should be used appropriately.
	Defining parliamentary purposes is, of course, not easy. Members’ roles are various, and we are, with very rare exceptions, elected as party candidates and uphold our parties in Parliament. That is very different from using public funding for party campaigning, or to support party organisations. Having considered the definition extremely carefully, the Committee recommends that the rules make it clear that public money should not be used to
	“confer undue advantage on a political organisation”.
	Most of the other changes consist of clarifications and re-ordering to make the code more coherent. One change that has attracted some comment is the proposal to remove paragraph 12 of the code, which refers to the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members and officials. We suggest that it should be included in a new paragraph 13, which would also cover the declaration and registration of interests in the House. That would make it clear that Members should
	“always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.”
	That is a clarification rather than a substantive change. Its roots lie in one of the more painful cases that the Committee has had to consider: the so-called Lobbygate, in which Members were drawn into discussing jobs that they might undertake after they had left the House. One of the cases arising from that involved the failure of my good friend Mr Richard Caborn to declare an interest in a meeting with the chairman of a health authority. At the time, it was argued that the rules governing declaration did not cover such cases, as the person concerned was not a Minister or a civil servant. Our judgment was that the spirit of the rules was clear: their purpose was to ensure that Members were transparent in their dealings with people who might be in a position to influence public policy or the spending of public money. However, we believed that the rules could be better expressed, and these changes achieve that.
	One of the great sadnesses involved in dealing with standards cases is that we must deal with what comes before us. The Committee cannot simply refuse to look into a matter because it was a case of entrapment or a single transgression in a distinguished career, and there are a limited number of sanctions that it can recommend to the House. It is a mark of the respect and affection in which Richard Caborn is held that extremely senior people have asked the Committee to reconsider his case. We have considered the matter carefully on more than one occasion, but ultimately we decided that we had considered the rules carefully at the time of our original finding.
	It may help, however, if I discuss some of the matters that were set out clearly in the original report and debate. The commissioner and the Committee agreed that the breach of the rules was inadvertent. As I said at the time, the penalty that we proposed was
	“intended to be light, because we recognised that Mr Caborn did not intend to breach the rules or to bring the House or its Members generally into disrepute.”
	An inadvertent slip should not obscure Mr Caborn’s long record of distinguished public service, and I hope that it does not do so.

David Blunkett: As one of those who made representations to my right hon. Friend on behalf of my former colleague the then Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Central, I welcome the tenor and nature of his speech. Does he agree that in future, and specifically in the guidance that is to be offered, there should be absolute transparency about the operation of the Committee and about basic rules of fairness? For instance, should the guidance not make clear what is a constituency matter and what is not? Richard Caborn has rightly argued that that was a problem in the interpretation of the previous rule.

Kevin Barron: I do not want to go into any great detail, but the changes in the code are intended to do precisely that. They are intended to clarify areas so that they are not open to interpretation—or, some would argue, misinterpretation—in years to come.
	The code does not need radical revision, but it does need to evolve to meet the changing expectations and circumstances of not just the House of Commons but
	the public outside, and, as I have said, it needs to be as clear as possible. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the commissioner for his thorough consideration of the code and the work that he has done to produce a clearer, more coherent document, which I commend to the House. I hope that those who tabled the amendment will reconsider their position, but we will be able to revisit it. The guidance will reassure the House that no commissioner will be able to forage into areas that would be unfair on Members of Parliament, and I hope that that will be acknowledged.
	I also hope that the second motion will prove entirely uncontroversial. It introduces an additional register to record the interests of those who provide secretariats for all-party groups. It will deal with an anomaly between the registration requirements for staff of all-party groups and those for Members’ staff. It will make the arrangements easier to administer, and will reduce the risk that, owing purely to inadvertence, interests will not be registered. The proposal is the result of a paper from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, and the Committee is grateful to her for it. The staff of all-party groups are currently required to register only income from employment, whereas secretaries and research assistants are also required to register gifts, benefits and hospitality. The motion proposes that the registration requirements should be the same for both groups.
	The motion also proposes the transferring of the requirement to register to the staff member from the Member who is the registered contact for the all-party group, who may not be closely involved in the group’s administration. That would make it easier to ensure that the registration requirements are complied with, as the relevant forms can be issued with pass applications, and it will not be necessary for an officer of the group to take such action. As Members may know, the Speakers of the two Houses have set up a bicameral working group to consider all-party groups. I am a member of it, as are others who are in the Chamber this evening. There may be more changes to come, but there is no need for us to delay this change.
	I trust that the House will approve my modest proposal to streamline and tighten the registration requirements for staff of all-party groups. Indeed, I hope that it will agree to both motions. I look forward to ending any misgivings relating to one of the reports at a later stage in our proceedings.

Charles Walker: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). Let me begin by paying tribute to the work of his Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. A great deal of thought has gone into their review, and much of what is suggested makes perfect sense. However, my amendment seeks to address and limit the no doubt well-intentioned recommendation that will allow the commissioner to broaden his remit into investigating and adjudicating on Members’ conduct in their wider private and personal lives. I believe that that proposed intrusion into Members’ private and personal lives is a step too far, and I am worried about where it may lead the commissioner and the House if left unamended.
	Justifying an extension of the commissioner’s powers, the Committee states on page 11 of its report, paragraph 2, that
	“The Code does not seek to regulate the conduct of Members in their purely private and personal lives or in the wider conduct of their public lives unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
	If deconstructed, however, that statement, far from limiting the new powers of the commissioner in the area of Members’ private and personal lives, gives him almost unlimited scope to investigate any action committed in this space on the basis that it is potentially damaging to the reputation of Parliament and its Members. A less generous, but accurate, interpretation of paragraph 2, page 11, would read as follows: “The code will seek to regulate the conduct of Members of Parliament in their purely private and personal lives, if it is the view of the commissioner and the Committee that their actions could be deemed significantly to damage the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”
	I worry about where this new activism by the commissioner might lead. Over the weekend, I wracked my brain to try and imagine scenarios in Members’ private lives that would trigger the interest of the commissioner, and I could only come up with two topics: the bedroom and the bottle. In common with most people, these are the two weaknesses that seem most likely to compromise Members of Parliament in their private lives.
	On page 24 of the report, the commissioner argues that his interest is warranted on the basis that
	“a Member of Parliament is never off duty. Once elected, a serving Member is likely always to be seen as a Member of Parliament, with the duties and obligations that go with that position, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.”
	I dispute that view. Despite living in his constituency full-time, the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne—namely, myself—is, on occasion, most certainly off duty, and be assured, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were not off duty on occasions, I would slowly, but surely, go mad. Perhaps that point has already been reached.

Robert Syms: I find it refreshing that the commissioner thinks we are never off duty. I wonder whether that will be reflected in the Senior Salaries Review Body review of our salaries.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend is leading me into territory into which I should not stray in this debate.

Paul Beresford: May we think about a recent case that the Committee considered? A Member might have had a private meeting, perhaps with another family member who was a businessman, and in which there was a discussion about funding and payment. During that meeting, the Member might have utilised his position as a Member, and that might have become public knowledge, although the meeting was private. I am sympathetic to where my hon. Friend wants to go, but I am bothered that we have not looked at this issue properly and I would like him to consider putting his point but—as the Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), said—then allowing us to look at it carefully later, to ensure that we do not err.

Charles Walker: I will take that into consideration, and I acknowledge the spirit in which the point has been made.

Oliver Heald: May I return to the theme I was developing earlier, in what was described as a very long intervention— I shall try to be briefer this time? The commissioner suggests that some of the new rules might be split. We used to have rule 2, stating that the rules do not
	“seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives”,
	whereas rule 16 said Members must not bring the House into disrepute, which was, in a sense, a mop-up rule. Matters are set out in a more coherent way now, but there is no real change.

Charles Walker: I disagree with my hon. Friend about that. The commissioner is clearly trying to give himself powers to investigate Members’ private and personal lives, which is why this amendment has been tabled.
	The commissioner’s interpretation of a Member’s status is at odds with that of another regulatory body, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which states in its consultations and press releases that a fundamental principle of its scheme is that MPs
	“should be treated…as far as possible like other citizens.”
	The various regulatory bodies that oversee and adjudicate on our activities cannot reasonably expect to have it both ways. The public now rightly demand that Members of Parliament should face the same rigours that they do in their daily lives. The flipside of that must be that parliamentarians, “like other citizens”, also have the right to a private life and private space—and in this private space people will, on occasions, make mistakes.
	It is in the nature of our job—this vocation—that if these mistakes are large enough, they will be picked up and reported by the press, with all the opprobrium, shame and upset that goes with having our private calamities played out on a national stage. I look back at the personal agonies that the former hon. Members for Croydon Central and Winchester went through in the last Parliament, and I shudder to think how much worse things would have been for them if the parliamentary commissioner, however well intentioned, had been conducting his own forensic investigation into their actions, dragging in family, friends and perhaps other aggravating parties. There would have been months and months of investigation, all in the name of protecting the notional honour of the House.
	The Committee does not dismiss the possibility of such investigations. It offers a well-meaning but vague assurance on page 6 of its report that
	“like the Commissioner, we do not think the Committee or the House should be drawn into judging a Member's purely private and personal relationships.”
	Why is that sentence not worded more forcefully? Why does it equivocate when it could say that “the commissioner and the Committee will not allow the House to be drawn into judging a Member’s purely private and personal relationships”? Why is that assurance not given by the commissioner and the Committee? The reason, I believe, is that it cannot be given because the commissioner knows full well that, almost exclusively, personal scandals and misfortunes are where the action lies.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend’s amendment not create the same problem? If the matter in question were not only to relate to a Member’s conduct, but also affected their ability to be an MP—rank dishonesty
	falling short of crime, for example—the commissioner would be able to investigate. Does my hon. Friend’s amendment make any difference, therefore?

Charles Walker: In his usual helpful way, the broad-minded Leader of the House made it clear in his response to the consultation that he was not aware of any recent cases where a Member’s conduct in their purely private and personal life had been so outrageous that the House or the general public would have wanted action to be taken against the Member. Those pushing this proposal cannot come up with any sensible examples.
	The Leader of the House has been in this place for almost 40 years, but while it seems he cannot think of anything worth investigating, the commissioner clearly can. That is why he is promoting this change to the current code of conduct.

William Cash: This issue boils down to how the provisions are drafted. No one has any serious doubt about the intentions and the parameters, but problems do arise. The code states that it does not
	“seek to regulate what Members do in their purely”—
	I emphasise that word—“private and personal lives”, or in the conduct of their wider lives. Rule 16, however, says:
	“Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage.”
	Therefore, on the one hand we are told the code does not seek to “regulate”, yet on the other hand we are told Members shall “never” undertake certain actions. I do not think there is any real doubt about what is intended, but I am worried about the interpretation that might be drawn if this proposal is passed. That is the problem. This is more an issue of drafting than of intention.

Charles Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
	I appreciate that the Committee and the commissioner are at pains to point out that it is not their intention to create a “red top” charter. I accept that that may not be their intention, but the fact remains that real reputational threat to this place is contained in this flawed proposal.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend said he wanted an example. I did give him one, but he has not responded to it. It is a financial, not a lurid, example, and I would like him to consider it.

Charles Walker: The example given was fraud, and it was also extraordinarily tortuous.
	The Leader of the House, whom I do not often pray in aid of my arguments—as he knows—has been here for 40 years and he cannot think of anything in that time that would have required this power to have been exercised. We in this place are brilliant at inventing new misdemeanours and crimes with which to beat ourselves.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend talked about bed and the bottle. I have never been asked to go on a billionaire’s yacht, although it is something that one would perhaps look forward to, but some Members of this House do stay with important people when on holiday. Does he
	think that this proposal will give another hand to those who want MPs to have to declare where they are going on holiday?

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend leads me into the final part of my speech. Let us be clear that however well intentioned the power the commissioner is seeking, it will mean that Members’ private and personal lives will be in the ambit of investigation. Their actions will be scrutinised by the commissioner and a subjective view will be taken of whether or not those actions could cause significant damage to the reputation of the House. Every sexual peccadillo, domestic dispute or unguarded cross word would lead to tabloid calls for the commissioner to take action—“Something must be done”, the headlines will cry. The commissioner argues that in the event of an undefined personal scandal, the House’s status would be diminished if it
	“were unable to take action to express its disapproval and uphold its standards in such circumstances.”
	In a sense, that sounds like a return, after 17 years, to “back to basics”. We know what a disaster that was; we had all these moral judgments applied to the activities of Members. The one example that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) did provide would be covered by criminal law in any case, so it is not relevant to this debate.
	In conclusion, I am fully aware that Members of Parliament can do bad and unethical things in their capacity as Members of Parliament, which is why these standards and the code of conduct are so important. As importantly, I am also aware that people can do silly and stupid things regardless of who they are, because none of us was born an angel or a saint. So I strongly believe that the House should confine itself to worrying about the matters that directly pertain to the job of being an elected representative, and not those that relate to general human weakness or stupidity. For that reason, I urge the House, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, for whom I have a huge amount of time, and my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) and for Mole Valley, of whom I am extraordinarily fond, despite our little spat this evening, to support my amendment. On this occasion, it is time that the House recognised that the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne is arguing for the virtuous and should carry the day.

Angela Eagle: We welcome the review of the code of conduct by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges commenting on the draft code and the changes that the commissioner has suggested. May I also say at the outset that Labour supports the changes that he has suggested for all-party groups?
	As the Committee notes, the code was last revised in 2005 and several areas of it could be usefully clarified, so there is much that we welcome in the review. It is sensible that the code of conduct has remained one of high-level principles, rather than detailed rules. As the chairman of Standards for England noted in his consultation response, there is a danger that having a set of rules
	“which is too tightly defined can lead to a complexity which makes understanding of the rules too difficult to grasp which is therefore counter-productive”.
	We welcome the fact the commissioner has rejected such an overly prescriptive rules-based approach. There is much that we can welcome in the report, so rather than go into great detail about that, I wish to concentrate on areas where we have some concerns, one of which has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
	Labour Members believe that the existing code of conduct is working well. That is not only a tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and his Committee, but it is reflected in the responses to the consultation, which did not throw up any major concerns with the status quo. Therefore, any suggestion that the code should be extended into areas not currently covered would need to be backed up by a convincing argument.
	In his consultation, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards asked:
	“Should the scope of the Code extend to some aspects of a Member’s private and personal life? If so, how should that be expressed in the Code?”
	The parliamentary Labour party’s response to the consultation said no to that, as we feared that it would turn the code of conduct into a code of morals. That remains our view, and we are puzzled by the commissioner’s recommendation on this point. The proposed revision to the code states:
	“the Code does not seek to regulate the conduct of Members in their purely private and personal lives”.
	We agree with that approach, because the code should not seek to do that. However, the proposed new code would go on to state:
	“unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
	That is the point that we have all been wrestling with in the debate.
	That extension appears to suggest that we, as Members of this House, are entitled to a private life—we are all human, so we are entitled to one under article 8 and the Human Rights Act 1998—unless the commissioner rules that we are not. As the Leader of the House pointed out in his response to the consultation,
	“extending the scope of the Code explicitly to cover Members’ private and personal lives could, as you note in the consultation paper, lead to their human rights being infringed.”
	What threshold would result in the code coming into action? We are not told. The commissioner’s response to the consultation says that it would be “extremely limited circumstances” that are
	“so serious and so blatant”.
	However, he gives no further indication of what those might be. Such comments cause further confusion, rather than illuminate what the new situation might be. He gives no clues as to what he thinks those circumstances should be.
	So what are these “extremely limited circumstances”? Some attempts have been made in the debate to define them, but those have been unsatisfactory. I am sure if we stood on Westminster bridge and canvassed the views of those who passed by, we would find as many views on what those circumstances should be as people we spoke to. The current commissioner may take a narrow view of what constitute his “extremely limited circumstances”, but his successor may take a more or
	less narrow view. This is an unsatisfactory situation. The Leader of the House noted in his response to the consultation that we should be
	“wary of extending the Code to deal with a purely hypothetical eventuality.”
	I agree with that.
	As I said at the outset, the existing code is working well. What was needed was tweaking and clarification, not mission creep. Most of the proposed changes to the code are sensible and can easily be supported.

Oliver Heald: I rather agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was saying earlier. I do not think there is any intention to extend the scope of the code here. The existing code, before the amendments, did not apply to private conduct, but there was a general provision that no Member must act in a way that brought the House into disrepute. This is about clarifying what those two provisions mean in the amended code. I would have thought that that was something that should happen, even if the hon. Lady is not happy with the exact wording.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman makes a particular point, but I do not think that what the commissioner has suggested is clear either and that is what we are struggling with at the moment. I may be alone in this, but I did not think that we faced a problem that needed the kind of revision that has got us into the confusing situation we are now in.
	Members of Parliament are rightly accountable in the courts of law and under the code, as are people in other walks of life. But unlike lawyers, general practitioners or people in any of the other professions, Members of Parliament are accountable at the ballot box for their actions and they are accountable to their political party. The electorate are entitled to make a judgment about a Member’s private life, and about how effectively they pursue their constituency duty and how they treat their constituents—that is how democracy works—but I trust the common sense of the British people to make such judgments; we should leave judgments about morals to them.

George Young: I welcome the chance to intervene briefly in this interesting debate, and I commend the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) for his speech in moving the motion and for his work on the Committee on Standards and Privileges during his time as Chair, including his work in producing the two reports we are considering today. The House will have noted what he said in response to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
	I also commend the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, for his work as commissioner. His term of office concludes at the end of this year, and it is possible that this will be the last debate on the work of his office, in general terms, during it. He has faced a work load that neither he nor anyone else could have foreseen when he was first appointed, he has discharged his responsibilities conscientiously and effectively and been a source of wisdom and good sense for the Committee on Standards and Privileges and its successive Chairs. I say that with added conviction as the Chair at the time of his appointment.
	The review of the code that the commissioner has carried out reflects the experience he has gathered during his term. The overwhelming majority of the changes he has proposed represent sensible changes, improving the clarity and structure of the code without affecting its overall scope and meaning. In particular, the changes help to distinguish the aspirational parts of the code from the adjudicable part.
	I want briefly to touch on four areas that have attracted particular interest, namely the application of the code to hon. Members’ private lives, the code in relation to constituency responsibilities, personal responsibility for the use of resources and the principle of equal application to all hon. Members.
	On the first matter, the commissioner, the Committee and the House have wrestled, and are wrestling, with the vexed issue of how far the code applies to hon. Members’ private lives, which is the subject of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and others. In my submission to the review, which has already been quoted, I said that the distinction between private and public lives was
	“important, even if it is not always clear”.
	I noted that an extension to private lives might lead to an infringement of human rights, a point also made in the submission by the chair of Standards for England.
	I further pointed out that any such extension
	“could also be used to justify intrusive and prurient media interest in Members’ private lives, on the basis that if the House chooses to concern itself with Members’ personal lives—however sparingly—then there should be no limits to the media doing likewise”.

Menzies Campbell: As my right hon. Friend will know, the code must be read as a whole. Has he had time to look at paragraph 18, which provides:
	“The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code”
	and the following sentence, which states:
	“Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House”?
	If the investigation is into private life, that necessarily means that if a Member refused to answer a question on his or her private life, he or she could be regarded as breaching that part of the code.

George Young: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Once an inquiry has been started by the commissioner, Members are obliged to co-operate and if they do not, they will face consequences from the Committee on Standards. That paragraph would then kick in.
	The commissioner has concluded that being an hon. Member is a way of life. As he put it, an hon. Member
	“is never off duty. Once elected, a serving Member is likely always to be seen as a Member of Parliament, with the duties and obligations that go with that position, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.”
	I personally paused at the assertion that I am never off duty, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and other colleagues might have had the same reaction. I think that there are times when I am off duty. The commissioner’s conclusion is that an hon. Member’s conduct in both their private and wider public lives is excluded from the provisions of the code
	“unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally”.
	This is a very high hurdle for investigation, and that approach was endorsed by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	The amendment, if the subject of a complaint related only to the conduct of a Member in his or her private and personal life, would have the effect of providing that it could not be investigated. I am confident that the Members who have proposed the amendment have no wish to argue that Members should be subject to special treatment that is not available to others. The issue at stake is simply whether there would ever be circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the commissioner to undertake an investigation into a matter that did not intersect at all with an hon. Member’s conduct in his or her public capacity. That is a matter for the House and each hon. Member to consider and it is not an issue on which it is appropriate for the Government to take a collective view, although I am personally sympathetic to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.
	The House will also want to reflect on the offer made by the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee to take the House’s concern and address it in the revised guide, which, as I understand it, would leave the code unamended and insert an additional step in the process, in that the Committee would have to agree to the commissioner conducting an inquiry in this particular domain. I am sure that the House will welcome those offers and will want to reflect on them.
	Another potential matter of contention is the application of the code to constituency matters. In his memorandum, the commissioner makes it clear that the way an hon. Member handles constituency business should not be adjudicable by the commissioner, and I agree. He suggests that the House would only wish to consider an instance that was
	“so serious and blatant as to cause significant damage to the reputation of the House”.
	I agree that it is very hard indeed to envisage these criteria being met.
	On the third issue, in my submission to the review I supported proposals for redrafting the code in line with recommendations by the Committee on Standards in Public Life
	“so that the House has a clear basis to take action against any Member who has abused the IPSA scheme”.
	The commissioner proposed to do that by means of a provision that stated that the use of public resources may not confer a political benefit. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has suggested a change, arising from its observation that it is unrealistic to expect that parliamentary activities legitimately funded from the political purse might never confer an indirect political benefit. The new code rightly makes it clear that Members should be clear that the use of public resources must always be in support of their parliamentary duties and should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else or confer undue advantage on a political organisation. I agree that that formulation is in line with the original proposals of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which used the phrase “undue advantage”.
	Finally, the commissioner considered and rejected a number of proposals that would involve separate rules for hon. Members who were former Ministers or who were Opposition Front Benchers. He did so on the basis that of the principle that
	“the Code should apply equally to all Members”.
	That is a principle that I wholeheartedly support.
	The second motion, as the right hon. Member for Rother Valley said, is more straightforward. It seeks the approval of the twenty-first report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which recommends extending the scope of registration to individual staff of all-party groups who hold passes and to transfer the onus of registration from the registered contact of the group to the staff member him or herself. As my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House stated in the debate on all-party groups on 7 February last year, all-party groups can play a valuable role provided they are transparent. That measure seems sensible and does not represent an abdication of responsibility by hon. Members who are officers of all-party groups. Instead, it reflects the proper situation whereby individuals who have the benefits of being a pass holder in this place should personally accept the responsibilities that flow from that.
	I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the House coming to a decision on these vexed matters.

Nigel Evans: Mr Walker, do you intend to press your amendment to a Division?

Charles Walker: I would be delighted if the Government would accept it, if they could, but otherwise I would like to press it to a Division.

Kevin Barron: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, before the amendment is pressed, I ask Members to remember my offer to look at the code of conduct and ensure that any commissioner—this current one or any in the future—would have to come to the House before considering any of the issues referred to in the amendment.
	The current code states in paragraph 15:
	“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”
	There is no mention in that paragraph of personal and private lives, or, indeed, of public lives, although they are mentioned in other parts of the code. The provision has never been enacted in such a way and I fear that if the House goes down the route of accepting that people’s personal and private lives are not covered by the code of conduct, that will be a step back. It seems to me that the House would be better advised to consider the genuine proposals that any body wanting to look into someone’s private and personal life would have to come to the Committee to do so. This House should have confidence in its Members who sit on Committees and in the fact that we have an independent commissioner whom we appoint, whose terms and conditions we set and who is independent of us. It should have confidence in a Select Committee on Standards and Privileges that operates in a non-party political way that was unanimous in saying
	we should accept the paper before us. We certainly are not unanimous in accepting the amendment. The House should have confidence in itself that if the commissioner or the Committee ever did something wholly wrong, the House could reject that.
	Let me finish by saying to hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on the Front Bench, who mentioned morals, that this is not about morals. I can tell the House, as the Chairman of the Committee, that if the commissioner came to me with a report about morals I would go around the Committee first before I would discuss the memorandum before us. It is not something we should do or that would be acceptable to Parliament or the general public. However, there are circumstances and occasions on which Members have gone overboard but have not been covered by the code. I genuinely think it would be wrong for us to agree to the amendment today. We can look at the guidance and these issues more widely if needs be, but what is proposed would be a backward step. If the amendment is accepted the code will be weaker than the code I have in my hand. I genuinely think we should not do that.

Nigel Evans: Mr Walker, do you intend to press this to a vote?

Charles Walker: I do: one’s personal and private life is one’s personal and private life.
	Amendment made: (a), at end, add
	‘, subject to the following amendment: After paragraph 16 of the Code, there shall be inserted the following new paragraph:
	“16A. The Commissioner may not investigate a specific matter under paragraph 16 which relates only to the conduct of a Member in their private and personal lives.”.’.—(Mr Charles Walker.)
	Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	Resolved ,
	That this House takes note of the Nineteenth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 1579), and approves the revised Code of Conduct set out in the Annex to the Report, subject to the following amendment:
	After paragraph 16 of the Code, there shall be inserted the following new paragraph:
	“16A. The Commissioner may not investigate a specific matter under paragraph 16 which relates only to the conduct of a Member in their private and personal lives.”.’.

All-Party Groups

Resolved ,
	That
	(1) this House agrees with the recommendations in the Twenty-first Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, on Registration of Staff All-Party Groups (HC 1689); and
	(2) accordingly the Resolution of the House of 17 December 1985, as amended on 10 March 1989, 29 July 1998 and 7 February 2011, relating to the registration of interests be further amended by:
	(a) leaving out paragraph 3 (f); and
	(b) inserting a new paragraph 4:
	"Holders of permanent passes as staff of All-Party Groups be required to register:
	i. any paid employment for which they receive more than 0.5 per cent. of the parliamentary salary; and
	ii. any gift, benefit or hospitality they receive, if the gift, benefit or hospitality in any way relates to or arises from their work in Parliament and its value is over 0.5 per cent. of the parliamentary salary in the course of a calendar year.".—(Mr Barron.)

Localism Act 2011

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That—
	(1) The following new Standing Order be made—
	‘Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders
	(1) The Regulatory Reform Committee shall examine and report on—
	(i) every draft order laid before the House under or by virtue of section 7 of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;
	(ii) every draft order laid before the House under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011.
	(2) In the case of every draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) the committee shall consider the Minister’s recommendation under section 15(1) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) as to the procedure which should apply to it and shall report to the House any recommendation under that Act that a different procedure should apply.
	(3) In its consideration of a draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) the committee shall include, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether provision in the draft order—
	(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
	(b) has an effect which is proportionate to the policy objective intended to be secured;
	(c) strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
	(d) does not remove any necessary protection;
	(e) does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
	(f) is not of constitutional significance;
	(g) has been the subject of, and takes appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
	(h) gives rise to an issue under such criteria for consideration of statutory instruments laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) as are relevant.
	(4) In its consideration of a draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(ii) the committee shall include, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether provision in the draft order—
	(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
	(b) gives rise to an issue under such criteria for consideration of statutory instruments laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) as are relevant.
	(5) In relation to every draft order laid under section 7(2) of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 subject to the negative or affirmative procedure under section 16 or 17 of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order should be made (in the case of the negative procedure) or approved (in the case of the affirmative procedure), indicating in the case of the latter whether the recommendation was agreed without a division. (6) In relation to every draft order laid under section 7(2) of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 subject to the super-affirmative procedure under section 18 of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation as to whether—
	(a) the draft order should be proceeded with unamended under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act; or
	(b) a revised draft order should be laid under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act; or
	(c) no statement under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act or revised draft order under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act should be laid.
	(7) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order that is subject to the super-affirmative procedure and is being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order or revised draft order should be approved, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division; and in respect of such draft orders or revised draft orders the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (3) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.
	(8) It shall be an instruction to the committee considering draft orders referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order and being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) of the 2006 Act that it report not more than fifteen sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act) or twenty-five sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act) after the relevant statement is laid.
	(9) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph 1(i) of this order, the committee shall report any recommendation under section 16(4) of the 2006 Act that the draft order be not made, or under section 17(3), 18(5) or 18(9) of the 2006 Act that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(10) In relation to every draft order laid under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011, the committee shall report its recommendation as to whether—
	(a) the draft order should be proceeded with unamended under section 19(3) of that Act; or
	(b) a revised draft order should be laid under section 19(7) of that Act; or
	(c) no statement under section 19(3) of that Act or revised draft order under section 19(7) of that Act should be laid.
	(11) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order being proceeded with under section 19(3) or 19(7) of the Localism Act 2011, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order or revised draft order should be approved, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division; and in respect of such draft orders or revised draft orders the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (4) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.
	(12) It shall be an instruction to the committee considering draft orders being proceeded with under section 19(3) or 19(7) of the Localism Act 2011 that it report not more than fifteen sitting days (in the case of an order under section 19(3) of that Act) or twenty-five sitting days (in the case of an order under section 19(7) of that Act) after the relevant statement is laid.
	(13) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph 1(ii) of this order, the committee shall report any recommendation under section 19(5) or 19(9) of the Localism Act 2011 that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.’.
	(2) Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) be amended as follows—
	(a) in line 5, at end, insert ‘, other than one laid under section 18 of the Act as applied by section 7 of the Localism Act 2011 or by section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’;
	(b) line 12, at end, insert ‘; and to carry out its functions under Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’;
	(c) in line 78, at end, insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order that is’;
	(d) in line 79, after ‘procedure’, insert ‘and is’;
	(e) in line 92, after ‘orders’, insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order and’;
	(f) in line 97, after second ‘order’ insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order’;
	(g) in line 134, at end, insert ‘or within paragraph (1) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’; and
	(h) in line 148, at end, add ‘or under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011’.
	(3) Standing Order No. 18 be amended as follows—
	(a) leave out from ‘under’ in line 2 to ‘should’ in line 6 and insert ‘paragraph
	(4) of Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order subject to the affirmative procedure should be approved, or has recommended under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order’;
	(b) leave out from ‘under’ in line 14 to ‘be’ in line 16 and insert ‘paragraph
	(4) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order subject to the affirmative procedure be not approved, or has recommended under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order’;
	(c) in line 25, after ‘141’, insert ‘or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’;
	(d) in line 28, leave out ‘Act’, and insert ‘Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006’; and
	(e) in the title, at end, insert ‘etc.’.
	(4) Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) be amended, in line 21, after ‘2006’, by inserting the words ‘any draft order laid before the House under or by virtue of section 7 or 19 of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’.
	The motion may be rather long and complex—at one point in its gestation it was even longer and more complex—but it should not be controversial. Essentially, it provides for certain draft orders which are akin to draft orders under part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 to be subject to Commons scrutiny in the same way as the draft orders under the 2006 Act. This will involve detailed consideration by the Regulatory Reform Committee followed by proceedings on the Floor of the House, with the nature of those proceedings reflecting the views of the Committee. The proposals follow consultation with the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee and the official Opposition. No objections have been voiced to the proposed method of proceeding. I have also spoken to the Chair of the Regulatory Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who has confirmed that he is content with the proposed approach.

Robert Syms: What we now have is rather longer and more comprehensive but I think it does the job and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has done.

David Heath: I am most grateful for that endorsement.
	I shall confine my remarks to two matters—the drafting of the Standing Orders and an account of how the procedures will work. As I have already admitted, the proposals before us are complex, but the complexity flows from the complexity of the current provisions in Standing Order No. 141. An earlier version of the motion on which I consulted was even more complex
	and I was asked to describe this version of the motion as the “simplified” one. Although I am confident that this motion will work, and its provisions are explained in further detail in an explanatory memorandum, I am not convinced that it is as simple as the House would wish. The Procedure Committee has indicated a willingness to consider the overall approach enshrined in Standing Order No. 141 and in the new Standing Order, and I know the Regulatory Reform Committee will also have an interest in the matter. If those Committees were to propose a simpler approach that delivered the same outcome, I believe it would be welcomed by the House.
	The nature of the order-making powers covered by the motion is described in the explanatory memorandum, so I shall not describe them now. Because the powers are broad and can involve change to primary legislation, the Localism Act 2011 provides for enhanced scrutiny arrangements, including a so-called super-affirmative procedure, by direct application of or by analogy with the scrutiny arrangements under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Commons Standing Orders currently assign the additional scrutiny powers under the 2006 Act to the Regulatory Reform Committee and we propose that the Committee should have the same role in respect of the new orders.
	The Committee’s powers are extensive. It considers the merits of each order and the appropriateness of the proposed method of proceeding. It can conclude that a particular measure should not be proceeded with or should be subject to different proceedings. Its conclusions help to determine the procedures that are then followed on the Floor of the House. The motion enables the House to consider the new orders in the same way as orders under the 2006 Act. The proposals are complex and we have an open mind on their being simplified in due course. For the immediate future, to enable proper scrutiny to take place, I commend the motion to the House.

Angela Smith: The motion establishes the arrangements necessary for enacting the necessary scrutiny by this House of certain orders and draft orders. It is my understanding that the Liaison Committee attempted to find a simpler method for such scrutiny but could not arrive at a satisfactory way forward. It is therefore necessary to adopt the procedure used by the Regulatory Reform Committee for the scrutiny of these orders. The procedure is complicated, as Members will realise, but Members also recognise that effective scrutiny is important. On that note, will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the Government will be willing to review the arrangements if weaknesses in these arrangements become apparent?
	We do not object to the adoption of Regulatory Reform Committee arrangements for the scrutiny of orders and draft orders arising from the provisions of the Localism Act 2011. That is not to say that we have changed our view of the Localism Act. We voted against it on Third Reading and think it wrong that the Secretary of State should have gathered so many extra powers to himself via its provisions—142 in fact. However, the Act is now passed into law and, on the scrutiny of some of the actions arising from its provisions, we have no objection to the adoption of arrangements that mirror exactly the procedures followed by the Regulatory Reform Committee.

David Heath: With the leave of the House, I will say a few more words. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for her comments. I assure her that if a new and better procedure is developed we will of course put it before the House. Alternatively, if there are major difficulties with what we propose, we will wish to look at it again. In the mean time, I hope that the House will agree to the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.

TRAVELLER SITES (DORSET)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

Robert Syms: I am pleased that the House has disposed of its business rapidly so that we can have a proper debate on Travellers in Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset. In a minute, one or two of my colleagues might run into the Chamber having been caught by the collapse of business.
	Before I start, let me say that I have just emerged from hospital, having had appendicitis, and I would like to thank Oliver Allenby-Smith, his team and all the nurses on ward B4 of Poole hospital, who have been nursing me for five days. I am now on the mend and able to represent here my constituents in Dorset.
	We all recognise the importance of making provision for Travellers. My experience throughout my political career is that if we make proper provision we have the legal powers to move people on from inappropriate places. It was a retrograde step when the John Major Government decided to move away from paying for pitches, because that diminished the infrastructure for many of the Traveller sites and has caused us problems ever since.
	The difficulty in Dorset is that in 1996 Bournemouth and Poole both realised their aspirations of becoming unitary authorities again, and therefore strategic authorities. However, consideration was not given to the boundaries of either authority, so both remained fairly tightly drawn. From central Poole or central Bournemouth one can get to rural Dorset in about 10 or 15 minutes, so there is logic in having a policy for Travellers that encompasses not only Dorset county council, but the two other strategic authorities, Poole and Bournemouth.
	Under the Housing Act 2004 Poole undertook a review of the housing need of Travellers. It carried out a consultation on the number of sites and came up with 20. It reduced that to three sites within its boundaries. One of the joys of having a local authority with no overall control is that the committee then decided to consult on all 20 sites. So I have many concerned and worried constituents who think they may well have a Travellers site in their own back yard.
	I would like more co-ordination and co-operation among the three authorities. They all want to work together, but there are certain things that are causing a problem. One of the issues relates to policing, which does not impact directly on the Department for Communities and Local Government. The issue of joint transit provision is not one that strategic authorities are able to consider because the Criminal Justice Act 2004 does not give the police powers to move Travellers across strategic authority boundaries. In Dorset, joint provision between lower-tier authorities is possible because under Dorset county council the higher tier is the strategic authority. Poole and Bournemouth do not have this opportunity because they themselves are both strategic authorities. Those authorities therefore have to provide facilities within area. That is not necessarily an easy fix. It seems bizarre that Dorset has one police force, the Dorset constabulary, yet under the law as it relates to policing, the force cannot move Travellers across Poole, Bournemouth or Dorset because they have to be unitary authorities. That needs to be dealt with.
	I would like a Minister to set out when we are likely to get the Travellers review. It would be helpful to see what obligations the local authority has. Does the Localism Act 2011, which introduced the duty of co-operation in plan-making, set out whether that will override other duties? What we need is co-operation among the three authorities. It is logical and it follows from our history and our geography that they should work together. Both Bournemouth and Poole are happy to make their contribution in financial terms, but the very tight geographical boundaries that both have make it extremely difficult to identify sites which do not have another purpose. In my constituency in Poole, for example, the only green area we have is Parkstone golf club. To the west is water, and to the north is an area of outstanding natural beauty and green belt, so identifying an efficient site within Poole will be extremely difficult.
	Then there are the issues of permanent sites and transit sites. It is important that there should be transit sites. The advantage of Poole is that the transit site could easily be only a few miles up the road in rural Dorset, yet at present we seem to be precluded from taking action. I should like more information on what is envisaged. Earlier this year the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) replied to a written question on Travellers from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). My right hon. Friend said that he understood that there was widespread concern about rules and guidance on Travellers sites. He stated that the Department for Communities and Local Government had published the new draft planning policy for Travellers sites for consultation in April 2011, but I still do not think we have clarity.
	On a number of occasions I, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) have tried to pin the Government down to give us more specifics, but the Government have not been able to do so. The situation is difficult. Logic demands a collaborative approach among Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth in discharging our duties towards Travellers. We have not been able to do so because of slight legal impediments, the police impediment that I set out, and the lack of clarity.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to set out clearly the requirements under the Localism Act 2011. I had great hopes of the Act. This is the great new dawn for local government. The Act specifically introduces a duty to co-operate in plan-making, although there are no definitions of what the duty consists of. The authorities are meant to come together to agree a plan strategically. This is, in effect, what is happening between the three strategic authorities, Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole, with the joint Gypsy and Traveller work. However, that does not mean that we can offload our responsibility to provide appropriate sites, and we would not wish to do so.
	We are in a state of flux. The borough council wants to do the right thing, but because there is no overall control, it has consulted on too many sites and there are many worried people. Our geography and our history mean that identifying appropriate sites is very difficult. As I stated, we went from 20 sites down to three and
	consulted on the three. One of the three sites under serious consideration, which was in the Branksome triangle, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West, is already being used for car parking for Liverpool Victoria and is therefore in employment use. It is very difficult for us to identify a site that could be used as a permanent or a transit site without losing employment land. We want to do the right thing, but that is extremely difficult because of our history and our geography. That is why I hope for some answers from the Minister.

Conor Burns: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Adjournment debate. Does he agree that one of the major issues that we face is uncertainty, which is upsetting and unsettling many members of the local communities that we both serve across the Bournemouth and Poole conurbation?

Robert Syms: I agree. That is an important point. As a local politician, I am trying to get some certainty, as I am sure is my hon. Friend, so that there is a much clearer sense of direction. Therefore, we need a few more answers from Ministers. If we do not get them tonight, clearly we might need to have further meetings with the Minister concerned. The uncertainty means that people are becoming much more worried than they need to be, not least because Poole is consulting on rather too many sites, some of which are not appropriate, and worrying a lot of people. My postbag is filling up with letters from people who have genuine concerns, as I am sure is my hon. Friend’s. Poole wants to do the right thing.

Conor Burns: One thing that is causing considerable anxiety locally is the fact that our councils are being forced to do the consultation that they are now undertaking. My understanding is that the consultation is part-funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government and that it is a central Government requirement on local government. The point my hon. Friend made a moment ago about definition and clarity around the Localism Act 2011 is extremely important in relation to the Minister's response.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that the 2011 Act is a landmark piece of legislation, and we have high hopes that it will transform local government. He is right that we need a little more clarity on whether it will offset some of the other requirements that the Government have put on Poole. We want to do the right thing and provide sufficient sites. We want to provide what we have a duty to provide and to pay for it, but the difficulty is that he and I have extremely compact constituencies. It is difficult to find appropriate sites in our constituencies, yet there might be appropriate sites five or 10 minutes away from the conurbation. However, because we have unitary and strategic authorities it is very difficult to do that and leave Dorset constabulary in a situation where it can move Travellers on if it has to.
	I know that Bournemouth has problems with Travellers on occasion and a number of temporary sites to deal with them at certain times of the year. Later in the debate I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West set out his constituents’ concerns on what is a difficult and worrying subject, but
	one on which we as politicians need to get more clarity. Essentially, we want three authorities to work together on this, which is the whole thrust of the 2011 Act and which they want to do. We want to combine financially and make provision for Travellers in the appropriate way; the most appropriate way might be for the three authorities to make that provision on a collective basis. That might mean not necessarily having the sufficient number of sites within the boundaries of Bournemouth or Poole.
	We need more clarity, and I hope that we will get it from the Minister. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West has similar views and concerns to me and I would be interested to hear them, so that the Minister may reply with conviction and give us more reassurance on this very difficult policy issue that our local councillors have to comply with. That is really all I have to say. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in his place and am sure that he will respond brilliantly to the debate. If we do not get the answer we demand tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West and I will look forward to further meetings with Ministers so that we can meet our objectives of providing for Travellers, safeguarding our constituents and getting efficient and effective local government.

Conor Burns: I begin by again congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) on securing this debate and apologise for arriving a moment late. This afternoon I travelled up from the constituency of Bournemouth West, which I have the honour of representing, after attending the opening of a visitor facility in a café at the Cherry Tree nursery by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal. That is relevant to the debate only because the nursery is surrounded by a large amount of greenfield land that has previously been occupied by illegal Gypsy and Traveller encampments, causing enormous distress to the people who work there—some wonderful young and old people who suffer from severe learning difficulties. The presence of those communities, often unannounced, has been a great source of concern to those people.
	My hon. Friend is putting on the Minister responsible, who is yet to be with us, an extraordinary expectation in hoping that he will respond in detail to all the points that we are making, but I am sure that his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who will reply to the debate, is taking all these points on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole went to the heart of the problem we face, which is that the previous Government’s policy remains in place. Before Christmas I spoke with the head of Gypsy and Traveller policy at the Department for Communities and Local Government, a lady called Nicola Higgins, who confirmed that the previous Government’s policy is still in place.
	In the run-up to the most recent general election, we raised our local electorates’ hopes and expectations that the matter would be a priority of the Government who are now in office. Ministers still make the point that the
	Localism Act 2011 will give our local authorities the powers that they need to get together in groups and remove from them the requirement that each must have their own, separate, single-authority provision. My hon. Friend who secured this debate and I want the Government to complete that unfinished business and to move with some speed to reassuring our local communities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) told the Bournemouth Daily Echo that he had been assured—according to my hon. Friend, by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, our hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—that
	“once the Localism Bill becomes law, councils will have an opportunity to re-submit their local plans without the obligation to automatically identify gypsy traveller locations.”
	In a letter to me, however, the Under-Secretary indicated that
	“every local housing authority is required under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 to carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of travellers.”
	The ongoing consultation throughout Dorset is being funded in part by money from the Department, so there is a great urgency about the Government’s clarification of when the powers that we promised local authorities will become available to them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poole mentioned that there are a couple of proposed sites.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Members for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and for Poole (Mr Syms) are making compelling and straightforward arguments, and it is good to see so many Members on the Treasury Bench to hear them, but does the hon. Member for Bournemouth West think that the problem is a lack of transparency or a lack of urgency from the Department?

Conor Burns: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place after his no doubt successful visit to the Falkland Islands—and this on Commonwealth day. As he knows, sometimes Governments of all persuasions need a little push, and it is our constituents who are giving us a push as those sites go out to consultation.
	The current consultation, which is being carried out by Baker Associates throughout Dorset and funded to the tune of some £300,000 by the Department, is profoundly unsettling the communities that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole and I serve. One proposed site out to consultation at the moment is Lansdowne, right at the heart of Bournemouth, known locally as the gateway to Bournemouth and visible from the Wessex way.

Robert Syms: As I said in my contribution, the real problem is that Bournemouth and Poole local authorities became unitary without the boundaries being looked at. Both areas are very compact, and finding suitable sites is difficult unless we do so on the basis of the Dorset way.

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend makes a valid and compelling point which I wholly agree with and endorse.
	My final point is that those communities, which include some elderly, vulnerable and frail people, are worried that our councils have gone out to consultation on specific sites. There is an excellent campaign being
	run on the Lansdowne site by a lady called Alex De Freitas, who has mobilised local traders and residents to put across their concerns.
	We really want to hear tonight a compelling answer of some urgency from the Minister as to when our local authorities will be able to move away from that consultation and take up the very sensible powers that they were presented in both governing parties’ pre-election offerings to the British people: the opportunity to come together and to make provision across multiple-authority areas, thereby giving the police the powers to move on the illegal encampments that do so much damage to the communities that my hon. Friend and I serve.
	I, like my constituents, look forward with eager anticipation to the words of reassurance that will doubtless now flow from the Minister at the Dispatch Box.

Andrew Stunell: First, let me say what an unexpected pleasure it is to have the opportunity to address the House on a matter that is of genuine significance and importance to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who spoke with eloquence about the situation that they face in Dorset and in their unitary authorities of Poole and Bournemouth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole on having secured the debate. I am delighted to respond to at least some of the points that he raised, although he will understand that I may not be able to respond to them all, including those that refer to specific sites and specific planning applications and situations, because ultimately they might finish up on the desk of the Secretary of State, and in those circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to offer a view from the Dispatch Box.

Robert Syms: May I say how very pleased I am to have my hon. Friend the Minister here replying to the debate? Sometimes greatness is thrust on people at the last minute. I look forward to his response, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and I will find it perfectly understandable if he cannot respond to all the points raised.

Andrew Stunell: This debate is being conducted in a generosity of spirit that we could perhaps export to other parts of our proceedings at other times.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poole said that he was disappointed that a previous Government had withdrawn funding for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites and expressed the view that that had made the situation more difficult. I remind him that this Government have recently announced a grant programme that will enable some 700 Gypsy and Traveller sites to be refurbished and built across England. There is still some money left in the fund, and we are open to receiving bids for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites to take advantage of that funding. I understand his point about the added difficulty created by the various planning constraints that arise if it is also thought that significant amounts of money have to be spent, but the Government have responded to that. I appreciate his request for the Government to provide additional encouragement for the three authorities to work together, particularly in the potential co-ordination of police action. I will come to those points in a few minutes.
	I want to make it clear that the Government are committed to encouraging sustainable development, and it is extremely important that local authorities plan for the future of their communities, within which there will be Gypsies and Travellers. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have taken steps to abolish the regional spatial strategies, and we have published the draft national planning policy framework on which a consultation has concluded and on which a further announcement can be expected shortly. That clearly states that local authorities have a duty to provide a housing supply for residents living in their area, including those within the Gypsy and Traveller community. I welcome the fact that both my hon. Friends said that they recognised the commitment to provide sites.

Tobias Ellwood: I apologise for being a bit delayed in joining the debate, which I was expecting to take place at 10 o’clock. It is always a delight to start these debates earlier, particularly today, as it gives us another hour and 15 minutes to debate this subject. [ Interruption. ] Not in an intervention, I am reminded.
	The Minister talked about councils’ obligations to the community. Does he agree that councils also have an obligation to defend and support the green belt, of which they are the custodians for future generations? Three permanent sites inside the green belt have been earmarked for north Bournemouth. This is not against Travellers per se, but against any form of development on the green belt, which is believed to be sacrosanct. Will the Minister endorse the line that councils must be given the duty, responsibility and power to make sure that green belts are protected?

Andrew Stunell: I welcome my hon. Friend as another late arrival at the ball tonight. He makes a valid point relating to the consultation that we have carried out on the planning circulars on Gypsies and Travellers. Indeed, he puts his finger on one of the central concerns that led to the initiation of the consultation. I will come on to the next stages of that process in a little while.
	There is an obligation on housing authorities to provide for all their residents, including Gypsies and Travellers. They must therefore make an assessment of what that need is and ensure that their local plan includes appropriate sites. The statutory guidance that we inherited implied that different planning rules should apply when sites were being allocated for Gypsies and Travellers. It is that incongruity between the planning constraints on the development of housing for the settled community and for the Gypsy and Traveller community that has often created difficulties and that the consultation is designed to address.
	In providing the funding for new sites, responding to the consultation and developing a new planning framework, we must ensure that we do not simply drive the problem to another place, but that there is adequate provision for Gypsies and Travellers where it is needed. Central to the case of my hon. Friends the Members for Poole and for Bournemouth West is that they want there to be co-operation between the three planning authorities of Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset to ensure that that provision is delivered in the right place in an appropriate and timely fashion. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, the Localism Act 2011 places a duty
	to co-operate in planning matters on local authorities. I am sure that he will want to draw that to the attention of the local authorities and ensure that it is delivered.
	Our aim is for the new draft policy to be short, light touch and fair; to put the provision of sites back into the hands of local councils, in consultation with communities; and to protect green-belt land. We are considering the response to the consultation and intend to publish our new policy as soon as possible. Although this goes a little beyond my brief, the House will understand that that is likely to be linked to the publication of the national planning policy framework. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), has put it on record that we intend to publish the framework before the end of this month. I hope that that is some reassurance that we are very close to producing the final version of the policy that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole seeks.
	It is important to put it on record that, like the rest of the population, the majority of Travellers are law-abiding citizens. They should have the same chance to have a safe place to live and bring up their children as anybody else. What is not acceptable is for anybody to abuse the planning system, for instance by trespassing and setting up encampments or other unauthorised developments. Another purpose of the planning circular, on which we have consulted and which will be published, is to ensure that some of the rule-bending that has taken place will be ruled out in future. The Government are developing a package of changes, including the use of incentives, through the planning system to provide a better balance between site provision and enforcement.
	To ensure fair treatment of settled communities and the majority of Travellers, we are putting in place a range of measures including the abolition of the architecture of regional planning through the Localism Act 2011—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I appreciate my hon. Friends’ support for that measure. We are putting in place stronger enforcement powers for local authorities to tackle unauthorised development and setting out measures to limit the opportunities for retrospective planning permission. My hon. Friends might not be aware that we are setting aside £50,000 to support a training programme run by Local Government Improvement and Development, which is aimed at raising awareness among councillors of their leadership role in relation to Traveller site provision and planning applications.

Thomas Docherty: How many councillors will that £50,000 provide training for?

David Heath: Lots.

Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend helpfully says “Lots.” I would be quite happy to provide further information, but it will provide councillors with day-long seminars at local authority level.
	I have already mentioned that we have included in the Localism Act a duty on local councils to co-operate. That will require them to engage constructively in the planning process. We have included Traveller sites in the new homes bonus, to reward councils that deliver additional
	sites. That will mean that councils get financial benefits for building authorised Traveller sites where they are needed.
	I have mentioned that we have allocated £60 million of Traveller pitch funding to help councils and other registered providers to build new sites. So far I have signed off bids totalling £47 million, which were announced in January and will lead to the setting up of more than 750 new and refurbished pitches for Travellers. Hon. Members may be interested to know that Dorset county council was a successful bidder for £1.75 million of support.
	It is important to rise above the simple planning context, which is what we have mostly concentrated on, and recognise that the Gypsy and Traveller community suffers a very high level of discrimination and deprivation. It has some of the poorest social outcomes in education, health, access to financial services and of course housing.

Conor Burns: May I gently put it to the Minister that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) nor I has in any way sought to denigrate members of the Gypsy and Traveller community or be alarmist about them? We are interested in pushing the Government towards a position in which our local authorities can respond to legitimate need but at the same time give the police the power that they need to move on illegal encampments, which are often positioned in sensitive areas and have an impact on tourism and other matters in our communities.

Andrew Stunell: I fully understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I hope to get to that in a sentence or two.
	I can report to the House that a cross-Government ministerial-level working group has been preparing proposals on how we can address the discrimination and poor social outcomes that Travellers experience. We have applied the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to authorised local authority sites, to give residents of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites better protection against eviction.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West has once again brought to the House’s attention the question of unauthorised developments and what happens next. As a matter of definition, an unauthorised development is land owned by Travellers but developed without planning permission. The Government are getting tough on unauthorised development. We will not tolerate abuse of the planning system by anyone. Local authorities have a range of powers to deal with unauthorised developments, but the fact of the matter is that planning enforcement remains a problem. The powers include temporary stop notices, which do not normally allow the removal of a caravan that is a person’s main residence. In addition to the measures set out in the Localism Act 2011, the Government are considering strengthening temporary stop notice powers. The measures in the Act include increasing penalties for non-compliance with a breach of condition notice, from a maximum fine of £1,000 to one of £2,500, and limiting the opportunities for retrospective planning in relation to any form of unauthorised development.
	Unauthorised encampments—Travellers trespassing on land not owned by Travellers—can be tackled not just through the planning system, but through the criminal justice system and civil courts. The police and local authorities have a range of powers to deal with such
	encampments. The full range of powers can be used when an alternative site is available in the local authority area. My hon. Friends have pointed out that because of the tight constraints and small geographical areas of both Poole and Bournemouth, it is difficult to establish the availability of such sites in the local authority areas. Their plea is for the Government to consider widening the scope of that measure, possibly using the duty to co-operate. I have taken note of what they said on that point and undertake to respond to them more fully.

Tobias Ellwood: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. With an hour and five minutes left, he has been extremely generous in allowing hon. Members to elaborate on aspects of this important debate. Will he clarify an important issue that affects both Poole and Bournemouth? The regional spatial strategy has been removed and regional development agencies are disappearing, with the 2011 Act replacing them. I understand that Bournemouth borough council now offers in the submission of its core strategy a different paragraph on where Gypsy and Traveller sites can be—it can make the case that Bournemouth is not appropriate and that those people should be placed elsewhere. Will the Minister confirm that? If he cannot do so now—I understand that he stepped in for another Minister—I would be grateful if his Department could write to me.

Andrew Stunell: I should make it clear to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not feel any deep obligation to keep going for another hour and a quarter.
	I would not want my hon. Friend to be too premature. The final version of the national planning policy framework has not yet been published. As I said earlier in my remarks, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, has told the House that the intention is that the national planning policy framework should be published before the end of this month. At that
	point, there will also be a statement on how it comes into force. Until that moment, it would not be appropriate for a planning authority to proceed—indeed, the authority could not proceed, because our proposals of last year have not yet been confirmed. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and I might have a reasonable expectation that when the framework is in force, the words he has used would be the appropriate ones to apply.

Robert Syms: I thank the Minister for responding to this debate. He deserves time off for good behaviour. I am sure that any points that he has not covered can be dealt with later by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).

David Heath: He will visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. [Laughter.]

Andrew Stunell: Yes, it has been suggested that I mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will be only too delighted to visit the constituency of each Member who has spoken. If it is thought appropriate, I will give that commitment on his behalf.
	We have discussed matters of real significance and importance to the constituents of the Members who have spoken. I do not seek to trivialise that at all. They have generously said that if there are points that I have failed to cover appropriately, they will give my hon. Friend the Minister another chance. On that basis, I hope that the House will be satisfied with my responses and that in due course the matter can be drawn to a full conclusion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.